John Denham: The answer is that those stem subjects are among the list of protected courses in the proposals on which the Higher Education Funding Council for England has consulted. We have yet formally to receive HEFCE's advice on its consultation and to respond to it, but I entirely share the point that has been made. We need to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to study the disciplines that are important to the economy.

John Denham: That was the turning point. That was what they found persuasive.
	The Department intends to conduct a full equalities impact assessment of the entire system of higher education funding when the relevant decisions have been taken. That is the right why to handle that important matter.

Vincent Cable: Speaking as somebody who tutored in the Open university when it was first established, there has always been a healthy mixture of people without academic qualifications and those seeking to adapt and improve their academic qualifications. Setting one group against the other threatens to undermine one of the few lasting achievements of that Labour Government.

Ann Winterton: If he will increase financial support for science in north-west and if he will make a statement.

Ian Pearson: I agree with Dr. Brian Cox that scientific research is not a luxury, but an absolute necessity, and in the north-west, a great deal of world-class scientific research is conducted. During the past few weeks, the university of Liverpool have been developing a model that can predict the risk of any person developing lung cancer in a five-year period. The university of Manchester, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has discovered a key process that may be involved in the spread of cancer, which could lead to new treatments to stop 80 to 90 per cent. of cancers in their tracks. A great deal of research into other matters, too, is being undertaken at north-west universities. As I said earlier, the budgets of all research councils have grown—for example, the STFC budget has increased by 13.6 per cent. and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's budget has increased significantly. However, it is up to research councils to determine their priorities, based on their best assessment of the science. There will be change because we live in a changing world and difficult decisions have to be taken, but it is best if those best placed to make the judgments are allowed to do so.

John Hutton: Our energy suppliers recognise that, and in a world of carbon markets and high fossil fuel prices, they recognise that nuclear power makes commercial sense. For those reasons, I do not intend to set some artificial cap on the proportion of electricity that the UK should be able to generate either from nuclear power or from any other source of low-carbon energy. That would not be consistent with our long-term national interest. Given that nuclear power is a tried and tested, safe and secure form of low-carbon technology, it would be wrong in principle to rule it out now from playing any role in the UK's energy future.
	Not surprisingly, however, some important concerns were expressed during the consultation about nuclear power. They fall in to four broad categories: safety and security, waste management, costs, and the impact of nuclear power on investment in alternative low-carbon technologies. Ensuring the safety and security of new nuclear provision will remain a top priority. Having reviewed the evidence put forward and the advice of independent regulators, we are confident that we have a robust regulatory framework. The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that our regulatory framework is mature, flexible and transparent, with highly trained and experienced inspectors.
	However, it is right that we should work closely with the regulators to explore ways of enhancing their efficiency in dealing with new nuclear power stations. I am keen, therefore, to ensure that the UK has the most effective regulatory regime in the world. I believe that it could be a critical differentiator for the UK in securing access to international investment in new nuclear facilities. I have asked Dr. Tim Stone to take that work forward, alongside his continuing work on the financial arrangements regarding new nuclear power stations.
	During the consultation, many argued that a permanent solution for dealing with existing waste must be developed before new waste is created. We have considered the evidence fully, and our conclusion is that geological disposal is both technically possible and the right approach for managing existing and new higher-activity waste. It will be many years, of course, before a disposal facility is built, but we are satisfied that interim storage will hold waste from existing and any new power stations safely and securely for as long as is necessary. In addition, before development consents for new nuclear power stations are granted, the Government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist, or will exist, to manage and dispose of the waste that those station will produce.
	The third concern relates to cost. It will be for energy companies, not the Government, to fund, develop and build new nuclear power stations. That will include meeting the full costs of decommissioning and each operator's full share of the waste management costs. The Bill includes provisions to ensure that, and transparency in the operation of the arrangements will be essential.
	So, in order to increase public and industry confidence, we will establish a new, independent body to advise on the financial arrangements to cover operators' waste and decommissioning costs. The advice of that new body will be made public. The nuclear White Paper published today sets out a clear timetable for action to enable the building of the first new nuclear power station, which I hope will be completed well before 2020. The Planning Bill will improve the speed and efficiency of the planning system for nationally significant infrastructure, including new nuclear power stations, while giving local people a greater opportunity to have their say. A strategic siting assessment, to be completed by 2009, will help identify the most suitable sites for new build. We expect that applications will focus on areas in the vicinity of existing nuclear facilities. Work is already under way on assessing the safety of the new generation of reactors.
	Finally, we must work with our EU partners to strengthen the EU emissions trading scheme to give potential investors confidence in a continuing carbon market. We look forward to the Commission's proposals later this month. I remain firmly of the view that there should and will be room for all forms of low-carbon power technologies to play a role in helping the UK meet its energy objectives in the future. Nuclear power can be only one aspect of our energy mix as, on its own, it cannot resolve all the challenges that we face. Meeting those challenges requires the full implementation of our energy and climate change strategy, with nuclear taking its place alongside other low-carbon technologies. The Energy Bill will ensure that we have a legislative framework enabling all of those technologies to make a positive contribution to our future requirements for cleaner and more secure energy.
	Giving the go-ahead today that new nuclear power should play a role in providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. I therefore invite energy companies today to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations. Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this important part of our energy policy.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Elliot Morley: There is much to welcome in the energy White Paper, and of course we cannot separate energy policy from the overriding need to tackle climate change, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been nothing to stop anyone from coming forward with a suggestion for a nuclear power station in the past 20 years? He can understand why people will ask, "What has suddenly changed?" On carbon prices, is he talking about some form of carbon price guarantee? On subsidies, will he make it clear that the obscene windfall profits for generators from free carbon allocation needs to be looked into at some point?

John Hutton: Well then, obviously the hon. Gentleman has understood my statement. We are not giving planning permission today for new power stations, and we will not subsidise them; I have made that absolutely clear. If power companies want to invest in other forms of cleaner technology, there is obviously nothing stopping them from doing so. Those are decisions that the energy operators or companies will make. It is transparent from the hon. Gentleman's contribution that we in this House could benefit from some fresh thinking, instead of a rehash of all the old prejudices that have confused the debate for so long. We want open minds, not closed minds. I am all in favour of reducing emissions, and we can start with what comes out of the hon. Gentleman's mouth.

Adam Ingram: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. It will be particularly welcomed in my constituency, the home of British Energy. May I draw his attention to the fact that thousands of jobs in Scotland are tied up in the nuclear industry? It is vital to the science, engineering and technology base of the Scottish economy. Will he use his persuasive powers to try to convince the Administration in Holyrood, led by the Scottish National party, of the error of their ways, and to make them understand the vitality of the industry and its importance in the energy equation?

John Hutton: On my right hon. Friend's latter point, I shall certainly do that. We invited Scottish Ministers to support a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament to facilitate the operation of the energy clauses of the Bill on a UK-wide basis. That would have been sensible, because the clauses are designed to ensure that there is no subsidy going into the costs of nuclear waste decommissioning and disposal. It is a missed opportunity.
	My right hon. Friend is right about the manufacturing consequences of the announcements that we are making today. There could be a renaissance in UK power engineering, with significant consequences in constituencies all over the United Kingdom. I hope that that is another reason why hon. Members will support what we are trying to do.

Peter Luff: I am in no doubt that today's statement from the right hon. Gentleman represents a very big step forward and a welcome one in progress towards building a new generation of nuclear power stations. In that context, I am particularly glad about the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), which underlines the fact that there is now broad cross-party support for the issue in the House, which is genuinely welcome. Another key test that the Trade and Industry Committee laid down in its report 18 months ago related to a carbon price. The Secretary of State referred to that in his response. There is not much in his statement about that, and there is not much in the documentation. Will he repeat to the House his assurance that if the second phase proposals to the commission are not strong enough, he will take unilateral steps in the United Kingdom to provide a firm price for carbon?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he and his colleagues on the Select Committee are doing. I agree that if there is cross-party consensus on these matters, that would be a tremendously good thing for the long-term future of our country. In relation to carbon markets, the most sensible thing for us all to do is to wait and see what the commission proposes. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will look carefully at those proposals. We do not rule out any option, as I said, but it is important that the carbon price is strengthened in subsequent phases of the emissions trading scheme. That will be important for the economics of nuclear, and will be the right signal for our approach to climate change.

Alan Whitehead: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that we will have to replace one third of our power plants by 2020 or so. Bearing in mind the existing published material, including that from the Health and Safety Executive, his Department and various other agencies, on the timetable for justification for site search, planning permission and so on, does he accept that it is unlikely that there will be any new nuclear power plant on stream by the time we have to replace that one third of our energy plant? Does he therefore accept that our concentration now should be on replacing that one third of energy with renewable energy, to make sure that that new one third of power plant is indeed low carbon?

John Hutton: We need to do all those things. I tried to make it clear in my response to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, that our argument today is not that nuclear can fix all the problems. That would clearly be the wrong argument, but we should not rule nuclear out because on its own it cannot meet all the challenges. My argument today is that it has a role to play. I do not believe that it is unlikely that there will be new nuclear power stations operating in the UK by the middle of the 2020s. It is likely that there will be several nuclear power stations operating by that stage. We should also remember that it is not just the 2020 target towards which we must aim our sights—it is 2050. Between 2020 and 2050 the challenge of responding to the science of climate change will intensify, not become easier to deal with. That is why it would be wrong in principle to rule out now one proven form of low carbon technology.

John Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Kingsnorth Medway application is a current application and at some point it will come to me to be approved, so it would be improper for me to say anything about that today.
	Coal has an exciting role to play in future. The successful demonstration project in carbon capture and storage will be critical. If CCS does not work, we will have to work twice as hard on energy efficiency, renewables and other sorts of low carbon technology to make good the deficit, but if we are prepared to back the right project—post-combustion coal is the right way to take CCS forward, partly because it would suit the UK's requirements, but it also has significant global application, given what is happening in China and other emerging economies—the UK could, rather unlike the hon. Gentleman, take an important global leadership role in supporting exciting new clean coal technology in the future, and I hope that he will support that.

John Hutton: There is no doubt that many people in the country have real concerns about nuclear going forward, and we have heard some of those expressed today and we heard them expressed during the nuclear consultation exercise. It is a subject of great emotion for many people. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that we have looked carefully—my officials, Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and previous Ministers in this role—at these issues. We are in a different set of situations now. The science and the economics have changed, and the nuclear engineering capacity and capability have also changed significantly. The simple question for all of us today is not whether we should consent to an individual nuclear power station or mandate power companies to use nuclear—that is not what I am talking about—but whether we want to rule out for all time the possible contribution that a proven, and it is proven, form of low carbon technology could make to tackling climate change and energy security problems in the UK. It would be entirely the wrong thing to do today to rule out this technology in perpetuity knowing that it could make a significant difference. That is not just my view but the view of many others in the scientific community and the Sustainable Development Commission and others.

Michael Jack: In welcoming the Secretary of State's statement and the reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), he will be aware that my constituency is the home of the majority of nuclear fuel manufacture in the UK. What assurances can he give me today that the NDA will enter into meaningful discussions with Toshiba Westinghouse to ensure that a suitable business model can be developed to make sure that we can sustain the manufacture at that site of nuclear fuel for the benefit of the UK and to realise the benefits of fuel and energy security for the UK?

David Kidney: On the question of investment in alternative low carbon technologies, I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement during the recent recess, not repeated in today's statement, of a major expansion in offshore wind power. Does he agree that between now and 2020, that decision has much more significance for our secure energy supplies and cutting carbon emissions than his nuclear decision today? Will he confirm that the contracts for the interconnectors to bring the electricity from offshore to the coast and from coast to the national grid will soon be in place, a matter of great importance to the power industries in Stafford?

Jamie Reed: May I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Minister for Energy and the Prime Minister for their courage and wisdom in making today's decision, which is long overdue. I welcome it.
	The Secretary of State knows that my constituency is home to the single largest concentration of British nuclear workers in the country. Following today's announcement, will he work with me to ensure that, although there will be multinational efforts in part, the delivery of new reactors in this country will be predicated on British workers, British nuclear expertise, British companies and British skills and experience?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement because of my interest in Hinkley Point.
	West Somerset and Sedgemoor district councils have been working on a framework document for local people to get planning gain over the life of the nuclear industry; Hinkley Point has been around since 1957. Will the Secretary of State consider forming some sort of framework agreement extending from central Government to local government, so that the benefits come straight to a community fund or some other form of organisation that could benefit local people directly in their areas?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words. I agree that we are at the beginning of the process, not the end. A lot of work will need to be done on a number of different issues—he referred to science, engineering and skills and I accept what he said. The Government have a role to play and they need to play it.
	Obviously, we considered carefully whether we could support a variety of different technologies through the competition process for CCS. We had clear legal and other advice that the right thing was to be clear about which technology we were inviting interest and bids for. The competition would have been much more complicated if those basic ground rules had not been properly established. There are opportunities across the European Union for other types of project to be supported. The European Commission is seeking to develop 12 demonstration projects in the EU, and I hope that there will be other opportunities for other technologies to be explored fully.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I also thank her for giving us an insight into the speech that she will give on 24 January in the debate on the SSRB report. I note that she was attempting to make a statement to the House on the Government's position before the Government have published that position and before Members have seen the SSRB report.
	On an entirely different subject, can the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that at around the time of St. David's day we have a debate on Welsh affairs?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister was less than convincing when he tried to explain his ever-shifting policy on ID cards. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has written to him and has not received a reply. When will the Prime Minister make a clear statement to the House on his position on ID cards?
	Last year, the Government graciously accepted the Modernisation Committee's recommendation to have topical debates, yet only the first debate was genuinely topical. Since then, the right hon. and learned Lady has selected subjects to match the Government's news agenda. Will she now listen to the House and agree to a topical debate on Sir John Tooke's report on the shambolic handling of the recruitment system for junior doctors?
	Yesterday, despite the importance of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, we had only one day to debate its remaining stages. Many amendments were not debated. Can the right hon. and learned Lady make a statement on why the consideration of this important Bill was cut short?
	In November, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister promised to make available in the Library details of the preventing violent extremism programme. Despite repeated promises from Ministers, the information is still not there. When will it be placed in the Library?
	When the Prime Minister still claimed to be a change, he promised to
	"entrust more power to Parliament".
	Since then, the Government have made no fewer than 28 policy announcements to the media before Parliament. Just this week, we have had press briefings on the NHS, nuclear power stations and deactivated firearms. When will the Leader of the House ensure that her ministerial colleagues, including the Prime Minister, do what he promised and put Parliament first? Every week, she tells us that she puts Parliament first, yet every week her colleagues treat Parliament with disdain.
	Another of the Prime Minister's changed policies was that there should be a deep clean of hospitals to fight superbugs. Yet now we know that only 50 out of 1,500 NHS hospitals have had a deep clean. The cost of the treatment is coming out of existing budgets, and the Health Secretary thinks that it is all a waste of time. When will the Health Secretary come to the House to make a statement on the Prime Minister's deep clean programme?
	Yet another of the Prime Minister's new policies was, notoriously, to promise British jobs for British workers. However, as we now know, 80 per cent. of new jobs go to migrant workers, the Government have lost a court ruling on foreign junior doctors, and the Government are weakening the resident labour market test. Will the beleaguered Work and Pensions Secretary take a break from the mess that he has created and make a statement to the House on the mess created by the Prime Minister?
	Do not those examples tell the sad truth about this Prime Minister? In the words of his own right hand man, he simply cannot claim to be the change, and is not that why his latest relaunch is doomed to fail?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised the question of ID cards. The Prime Minister made the Government's position clear to the House yesterday, particularly in relation to the importance of biometric information on passports and on visas for foreign nationals, and to the fact that if there were any progress towards making that compulsory for British nationals, it would be in the light of experience that we would be bringing it back for a vote of this House. That is, and remains, the position on ID cards.
	We have had a number of topical debates—in Government time, as the House will remember—on matters that are important regionally, nationally or internationally, topical and of public interest. We have so far debated immigration, climate change, apprenticeships and financial problems for low-income families, and I invite all hon. Members to continue to propose subjects that they think are topical. One of the problems is that in order to give Members enough time to plan to be part of a topical debate, we give out information and make the decision earlier in the week. Because that process happens earlier in the week, the debate is inevitably less topical by the time we debate it later in the week.  [ Laughter. ] The reality is that there is a trade-off between giving people notice and topicality, but we have committed to review the situation, as we undertook to the House and the Modernisation Committee, and we will do so.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the recruitment of junior doctors. She will know that we have recently had the publication of important work undertaken as part of the Tooke report.

Simon Hughes: Madam Deputy Speaker— [ Laughter. ] You may not have been very helpful by making that point then, rather than later.  [ Interruption. ] I am standing my ground.
	We had an energy statement, which was important; it may or may not have been welcome. Following the questions put to the Prime Minister yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), our new party leader, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), our new energy spokesman, on fuel costs and fuel poverty, will the Leader of House provide time in the near future for a debate on the effects of rising international fuel costs on people in this country and their fuel bills? Throughout the country, many people are finding the increased costs a difficult burden, and we would all benefit from a discussion about where we are, and where we can go to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
	We have just had the end of the consultation period on the Government's proposed local government settlement for the next three years. The right hon. and learned Lady will know, from our constituencies, that there is much unhappiness about the proposed tight settlement among all parties, and in relation to all councils and types of councils in England. Before we have the "big bang" debate later this month where we vote on whether we accept the settlement, could she find time for a debate that gives colleagues the chance to explore the impact of the proposals of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for their type of council?
	On Members' pay, pensions and allowances, may I help the right hon. and learned Lady by suggesting that, next Wednesday, when the Government propose to publish the report from the independent body, she comes to the House after Prime Minister's questions and makes a statement, which we can explore, on the Government's position, so that the House is well informed in the week before we debate the issues? That is sensible and will facilitate the most managed method of dealing with the amendments that will inevitably be tabled.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made an early bid for a Welsh debate around St. David's day. We have had a terrible time in parts of the Commonwealth—Pakistan and Kenya—over Christmas and the new year. Commonwealth day is 10 March. May we have an annual Commonwealth day debate so that those of us who believe that the Commonwealth should and can be effective can try to persuade the Government to use their influence to ensure that democracy is supported more effectively throughout the Commonwealth?
	Lastly, following the big issue of yesterday, the Leader of the House has been helpful. We had a seven-and-a-half-hour Report stage on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. More than four fifths of that time—more than six hours—was spent on Government new clauses, new schedules and amendments. There were 120 of them, all on matters that should not take time away from Government Back Benchers and Opposition Members. There were nine debates to be had on issues as important as blasphemy, prostitution, sex offences, pornography and personal data; yet we had only one out of nine. May I suggest that, in future, we negotiate the time for Report stage, which is the time for Back-Bench and Opposition contributions, and that if the Government want to do their own thing, they do it in extra time that they add to the agreed time? Only by doing that can we avoid the nonsense of the House of Commons considering one of the major Bills of the year but debating only what the Government wish to discuss, as happened yesterday.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important and constructive point, which I shall certainly reflect on. As he said, the Home Secretary has announced a six-month review period on the law relating to prostitution. As my hon. Friend said, the issue will be debated in the other place, and I will also look at whether there will be an opportunity for a topical debate to consider it.

Andrew MacKay: Normally when a Prime Minister answers repeatedly and woodenly, "This is Government policy," most of us smell a dither and a U-turn coming, so can we have a guarantee from the Leader of House that when the identity card scheme finally comes to an end, there will be a quick statement at the Dispatch Box from the Prime Minister and not from the Home Secretary?

Michael Connarty: Can the Leader of the House organise for the Department for Work and Pensions to have debate so as to explain to the House the regulations or other arrangements that the new Child Support Agency will operate under? In 1998, I secured an interim assessment on behalf of a resident parent from, basically, a reluctant payer who would not return the inquiry form. The new enforcement team decided in October last year that he owed £46,000 to his children, but that could not be recovered, because some of it cannot be recovered from before 2000. The team has now written to say that because the inquiry form was returned unopened, it has decided to reduce his liability to nil. Is the CSA really saying that anybody who does not want to pay should just stick the form back in the post with "Gone away" on it?

Crispin Blunt: Can we have a debate on the Prime Minister and his Government's attitude to Parliament? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister opens that debate, so that he has an opportunity to explain what has changed since the fine words in his statement to the House on 3 July and, in particular, to say why, less than one hour after answering Prime Minister's questions yesterday, he was not here to vote for the quite disgraceful programme motion put before the House? The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) said at the Dispatch Box that he would probably not be voting for it unless he had to make the case for it.
	Can the right hon. and learned Lady also explain why, in referring to what happened yesterday, she said, "As it turns out," as though it was a surprise? If the Government continue to treat Parliament as though we are that stupid, she cannot be surprised at the reception that she has received this afternoon.

Mark Hunter: I am aware that the House will debate preventative health services for a full 90 minutes later this afternoon, but I ask the Leader of the House to find time for a specific debate on the future of NHS dentistry. Does she agree that doing so is even more important in view of the revelations in  The Independent today that show that health care in this country is now the most expensive in Europe?

Harriet Harman: There will, as the hon. Gentleman says, be an opportunity to raise the ever-topical subject of NHS dentistry in this afternoon's debate, but let me remind the House that more people have NHS dentistry now than at any previous time. We want to increase further the number of people who have an NHS dentist, but it is more than ever before. In addition, we are increasing the number of dentistry students going through our high-quality dentistry schools.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of preventive health services.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate preventive medical services. We often debate issues involving the national health service and the treatment of ill health, and it is important for us to be able to focus also on the prevention of illness and the promotion of good health.
	The NHS has been engaged in preventive health services since its inception in 1948, and some preventive health services even predate its establishment. Wartime posters reminded mothers not to forget babies' cod liver oil and orange juice to prevent rickets and scurvy, and photographs of child health clinics with lines of children waiting to be vaccinated are emblematic of the early days of a service that is unique in its offer of health care free for all at the point of need, liberating all of us from fears of unaffordable treatment and untreatable illness: comprehensive health care, publicly funded by taxation.
	The announcement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister builds on that tradition by offering health checks where they will improve our ability to predict and prevent certain conditions in the people at greatest risk, including abdominal aortic aneurism in men over 65, which currently kills over 3,000 men a year. The screening programme is expected to halve that number. There will also be a mid-life test to identify vulnerability to vascular diseases that currently affect the lives of 6.2 million people, causing 200,000 deaths a year, and are responsible for a fifth of all hospital admissions. We announced last month that we would make available a vaccine to prevent the human papilloma virus, a major cause of cervical cancer. We have also made clear that we support the implementation of further screening programmes when the National Screening Committee advises that the evidence base is sound.
	Some of the greatest improvements in the health of the population have been secured through preventive programmes. As a result of vaccination, once-dreaded diseases like diphtheria and polio are extremely rare in this country, and smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Those campaigns have been so successful that we can easily become complacent about their worth. There used to be 500,000 cases of measles in Britain each year, but they can now be measured in hundreds. In other countries, however, measles remains a major childhood killer. We have seen how dependent we are on prevention to keep it at bay in this country when, as a result of vaccine scares, immunisation rates have fallen, leading to needless infections, complications and death.

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I do not share his analysis. Let us consider what has happened since 1997. Rates of obesity, sexually-transmitted diseases and substance abuse are all increasing, and progress on reducing smoking has stalled. Levels of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, are rising in the United Kingdom, and the UK has a higher prevalence of drug misuse than any other European country. That is not a record of which he should be proud.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which touches on the issue that I was trying to emphasise at the beginning of my remarks—one must look carefully at what this Government do, not what they say. Their record on the health service since they came to power in 1997 has been very much about central control and disempowering patients and those who use the NHS, rather than about empowering both individuals and groups. Conservatives want such empowerment to be a central part of the development of the NHS when we form the Government, as we hope to do after the next general election.
	I want to make some additional points about what the Prime Minister said on Monday. There is no timetable for delivery of the screening. He said that it would occur at some point between April 2008 and 2011, but could not say at what point in the spending round the money would become available.
	The House will also not be surprised to learn that some of the announcements made on Monday were not new. Conservatives have been calling for "triple A" screening for years, and the Government have promised to roll it out for at least a year. In the White Paper of January 2006, they recommended something called "Life Check", which was supposed to include a mid-life health check, including checks on weight, blood pressure and cholesterol. That is remarkably similar to what was in Monday's announcements.
	Furthermore, no consultation on those proposals has taken place. Neither the National Screening Committee nor the British Medical Association were consulted on the screening plans. It is beyond belief that the Prime Minister did not consult the very groups set up to provide him with expert advice on screening, nor the doctors expected to implement those policies.

Mark Simmonds: That is not exactly what I said. The health service needs to take into account the clinical evidence base that supports the recommendations from the professionals. The Government need to look carefully at what the National Screening Committee recommends, which is not whole population screening. I understand that the Department of Health is starting to resile from what the Prime Minister said on Monday. I shall set out what we intend to do later in my remarks.
	Not only have there been criticisms, but there are significant and glaring omissions. I just wish to give two brief, but representative, examples. First, despite what the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) said inaccurately on "Newsnight" earlier in the week, pharmacists were not mentioned at all in the Prime Minister's speech, despite their vital importance and the potentially significant contribution that they can make to preventive health care. The Government claimed that the new contract would lead to exactly these types of checks in the community, but only 1 per cent. of pharmacies have been commissioned by PCTs to do that screening.
	We also critically require primary prevention to improve nutrition. The estimated overall cost to the NHS of failing to treat under-nutrition is £7.3 billion per year, but measures to alleviate this burden were not announced in the Prime Minister's speech on preventive health care. Recent figures detail that the number of patients being admitted to hospital in an undernourished state has increased by a staggering 85 per cent. since 1997, to more than 130,000 last year. Failing to prevent under-nutrition in patients leads to longer hospital stays, delayed recovery, an increased risk of contracting health care-associated infections, and poor respiratory function. In some studies, undernourished patients are estimated to have a mortality rate up to eight times higher than well-nourished patients.
	The Opposition believe that policies on such important issues as preventive health must be carefully and fully considered and appropriately resourced. We have consulted widely and made a number of proposals in that vital area of health policy.
	We have pledged an independent ring-fenced budget for public health, allocated through a new public health structure, overseen by local directors of public health jointly appointed by PCTs and local authorities. We want to see a strengthened chief medical officer's department, made more independent of Ministers. We will use the public health budget to enhance significantly the impact of health awareness campaigns, both for primary prevention, to convey an understanding of the impact of lifestyle especially on cancer risk, and for secondary prevention, promoting awareness of symptoms and encouraging early presentation. We would make greater use of the skills and expertise of health care professionals, such as pharmacists, who are close to their communities and well placed to provide information about medical conditions, lifestyle choices and medicine management.
	Sadly, we have seen no such policy rigour from the Government, and the Prime Minister's recent announcements have left health care professionals and patients confused over exactly what services will be provided, where the resources are coming from, and when the checks will begin.
	I have a few brief questions for the Minister and I hope that she will respond when she winds up. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to fund fully any future recommendation from the National Screening Committee? Where are the resources coming from to fund the triple A announcement, which was first made in June 2004? What is the difference between the "life check" announced in January 2006 and what the Prime Minister announced on Monday? The Prime Minister said that everyone had the right to these check ups
	"when you want and need them, and where you need them."
	Is it the Government's intention to apply that to screening and, if so, where is the clinical evidence and analysis of the importance of risk profiling? How can this be reconciled with the advice from the National Screening Committee, which does not recommend whole population screening? Could the Minister clarify if the Prime Minister is really promising screening for everyone at any time?
	The NHS is one of the country's greatest assets, and the Conservative party's No. 1 priority. Under a future Conservative Government, the NHS will have a greater patient focus; it will be based on outcomes, not centrally driven targets; it will be properly resourced; it will be free at the point of delivery; and, most importantly, it will focus on the key to our long-term health—better public and better preventive health care.

Sharon Hodgson: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate on the subject of a more preventive health service. I apologise for my croaky voice, but I have a bit of a cold. Perhaps if I took more preventive health care decisions, I might not be suffering as I am today.  [ Laughter. ] The topic is a worthy one and, of course, we would not have been discussing it without the new time made available for topical debates, which I warmly welcome.
	I have lost track of the number of conversations I have had in my time as a Member of this House with health care professionals and constituents that have stressed the importance of taking a more preventive approach to health care in this country. I am sure that other hon. Members are no strangers to that topic either. The speech given by the Prime Minister earlier this week should be welcomed on both sides of the House as a step towards creating an NHS that is seen to be adapting to the new challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
	There has been an increasing focus in recent years on the impact of our lifestyles on our health. Lifestyle choices and the plethora of products available to support them are no longer a niche conversation or a niche market. The continued emergence of research that identifies risk factors associated with different diseases cannot be ignored. That is why a new focus on preventive health care is so timely. We now have the information available to support health professionals in seeking both to educate and protect our constituents. I am sure that I will not be the first or last Member today to utter the words "prevention is better than cure", so I will get that one out of the way.
	I would like to discuss briefly three aspects to the approach. It is necessary to raise the importance of both awareness and screening in increasing prevention of cancer and other killer diseases, and I would also like to ensure that Ministers are reminded of the continuing need to address health inequalities in the north-east. I would hope that long-term thinking and preventive health care will be able to make real inroads into health problems in Gateshead and Washington, and I will return to that issue.
	The recent cancer reform strategy made clear the need for greater attention to be paid to raising awareness of rarer cancer symptoms and also began to set out improvements in screening that will continue to save lives throughout the country. If we are to see more preventive health care, we need better education of symptom awareness. Ovarian cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, but all too often symptoms go unnoticed by GPs and patients alike. England and the UK were recently revealed to have among the lowest ovarian cancer survival rates in Europe, with just over 30 per cent. of women surviving for five years. The figure has not changed significantly in more than 20 years. Most women—75 per cent.—are diagnosed once the cancer has spread significantly, making successful treatment difficult. If our rates could match the best in Europe, an extra 800 women a year would survive beyond five years.
	I welcome Professor Mike Richards's statement that ovarian cancer will be included in the early awareness initiative that was announced as part of the cancer reform strategy. I welcome the active steps that are already being taken on better prevention through symptom awareness. The ongoing "TLC" campaign that encourages woman to "touch, look and check" their breasts for any signs of change also does valuable work in raising awareness of the risks of breast cancer. It is vital that Ministers continue to work with campaigners such as Breakthrough Breast Cancer to achieve the results that we all wish to see.
	Alongside working to increase awareness, it is vital that access to screening continues to improve for those most at risk of developing cancers and other deadly diseases. I have been in touch with Cancer Research UK about that, because I know it takes screening seriously. The launch of the parliamentary phase of the "Screening Matters" campaign will be co-ordinated in partnership with other charities including Jo's Trust and the Breast Cancer Campaign. The message is incredibly simple: screening matters because it saves lives. Hon. Members will have an important role in spreading the word and I encourage them to attend the launch event, which will be held in the House during February.
	Breast cancer screening is estimated to save 1,400 lives a year. Bowel cancer screening for those at risk is also playing a role in detecting cancer early and increasing the chance of survival. The message that I continue to hear from organisations such as Bowel Cancer UK is that the steps being taken by the Government are hugely ambitious. Labour Members should share a sense of pride at having helped to support those changes.
	The Prime Minister's announcement of a new vascular screening program has been warmly welcomed by many, including health charities such as HEART UK, the Primary Care Cardiovascular Society, the National Obesity Forum and the British Heart Foundation. However, we must ensure that that ambitious programme is properly supported. We need to stick to well-founded examples of best practice, such as those established for vascular screening. We will not succeed unless we have appropriate treatments and expertise available for those who are identified through screening as suffering from a potentially terminal illness.
	There is huge potential in the increased screening programme and it will make a real difference for many in my constituency. The introduction of the smoking ban, the success of the "five a day" campaign and improvements in the quality of school meals all add up to show the Government's strong and continuing commitment to public health in Britain. We now have more than 32,000 more doctors and 85,000 more nurses. Waiting times for operations are shorter than ever and screening projects are becoming more and more effective.
	I do not believe that we would have seen anything like the same degree of financial support or policy commitment under a Conservative Government. All the local authorities in Tyne and Wear are in the top two fifths of the most deprived areas of the UK. Gateshead and Sunderland, which cover my constituency, are both in the top fifth. I know from talking to staff at Gateshead Queen Elizabeth hospital and at Sunderland royal hospital that they are doing all they can to address the health inequalities that affect my constituency so badly.
	Those inequalities are prevalent despite the excellent care that my constituents receive at those hospitals and across the wider north-east from skilled and dedicated staff. In the Sunderland metropolitan area, life expectancy is 18 months below the national average. Death rates from smoking, heart disease, strokes and cancer are all above the national average. The mortality rate for cancer is 136 per 100,000 compared with a national average of 119. Almost a third of children are dependent on means-tested benefits. That can be compared with a wealthy London Borough such as Kensington and Chelsea, where the cancer mortality rate is only 81 per 100,000.
	In Gateshead, life expectancy is almost two years below the national average. Again, deaths from smoking, heart disease, strokes and cancer are all above the national average. In fact, mortality rates for heart disease and strokes are at 110 per 100,000 compared with a national average of 90. The statistics create a compelling argument that cannot be ignored. It is a common-sense recognition that the more we can prevent killer diseases through medical progress and lifestyle change, the more savings we can make on health budgets.
	Progress will be achieved only if primary care trusts and social care services work closely together to educate the public. Therefore, it is even more vital that we do not push the two services into a battle for funding so that gains for one only lead to losses for the other. That is why I am delighted about the recent provisional funding announcement, which will go some way to ending the problems that have been caused by the double damping of funding.
	In constituencies such as mine, health services need extra support to tackle ingrained public health problems. Many of us know the old sayings such as "an apple a day" and "go to work on an egg", but in the current environment there is a risk that such simple messages can get lost in the myriad information and warnings about the impact of our chosen lifestyles.
	I hope that ministers will acknowledge the issues facing constituencies such as mine in the north-east and will endeavour to address them as a priority when moving towards more preventive health care.

Norman Lamb: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). I immediately had a sense of affinity with her when she made her comments about her rough throat. I failed to take the preventive measure of a flu jab for the first time in 10 years, and the result was a miserable Christmas. I have a great deal of sympathy for her.
	The debate concerns an issue for which there is no doubt universal support. No one objects to or resists the idea of preventive health care. It is in every citizen's interest that the NHS should focus on that. It is also in the NHS's interest. As Derek Wanless said when he advised the Government on NHS funding, unless we help people to care better for themselves, we will bankrupt the NHS; it is simply unsustainable.
	The real debate is about whether the Government have delivered on preventive health measures and are likely to do so in future, as well as about the real meaning of the Prime Minister's speech on Monday. Like the Conservative spokesman, I was left with a degree of suspicion. It seems extraordinary that the announcement could have been made without discussion with the national screening committee or the involvement of clinicians or the British Medical Association. One is inevitably left with the sense that it is part of the big political battle over health and the Prime Minister's determination to recover lost ground on the health service.
	In a spirit of new year generosity, I will acknowledge that the Government have made some progress. For example, QOF—the quality and outcomes framework—introduced the idea of incentives to encourage primary care to engage in preventive measures. As the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, the screening programmes for breast cancer and bowel cancer have made progress. That should be acknowledged. I absolutely support the introduction of ultrasound screening for triple A, or abdominal aortic aneurysm, provided that it happens and is properly funded. As we have heard, the announcement was originally made some time ago and we are still waiting.
	The decision on vaccinations against cervical cancer was also absolutely right, and it will save lives. The debate is now about whether the programme can and should be extended to cover older age groups within the licence. It is licensed for those up to the age of 26, and yet women in the older age bracket will not get vaccinations under the programme. Will the Minister undertake to look into that?
	The problem is that the rhetoric, overall, has not been matched by delivery. The biggest challenge is public health priorities in disadvantaged communities—lifestyle ill-health. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West was absolutely right to draw attention to the enormous health inequalities in this country, which are growing under the Government. The key issue is access to health services and reaching those hard-to-reach individuals who are not benefiting from the screening that has been introduced for others across the country.
	It is extraordinary that remuneration for GPs continues to discriminate against those who work in disadvantaged communities. The NHS Confederation has argued that the minimum income guarantee, which hits GP practices in disadvantaged communities, should be reformed, along with QOF. At the moment, QOF pays out less money to GPs in disadvantaged communities than it does to those in the leafy suburbs.
	Why are public health budgets cut whenever financial constraints are imposed? Why is it being proposed that work in London on HIV prevention for gay men should be cut by 36 per cent.? The common thread is that all the financial incentives for PCTs around the country under budget pressure are that they should put money towards meeting treatment targets, rather than into prevention. That problem will remain until those incentives are changed.
	My slot in the debate is very limited, so my final remarks have to do with preventing fractures. The national hip fracture database is a fantastic initiative to drive up standards and quality of care, and it focuses on preventing fractures. In the UK, 310,000 patients suffer fractures every year. The treatment of osteoporosis is key: 3 million people suffer from the disease, and the social and hospital care costs of their fractures amount to some £2 billion a year. Proper treatment for all osteoporosis suffers could cut the fracture rate by 50 per cent., yet the Government have excluded osteoporosis treatment from the QOF arrangements in the negotiations that are under way. That is a big mistake. Osteoporosis was not mentioned in Monday's announcement, and the Government should think again.

Howard Stoate: I listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, but I do not recognise the problem that he describes. The QOF system set up under the new GP contract is almost completely evidence based. It is reviewed every year by the British Medical Association and the Department of Heath to ensure that it reflects best practice. Everything that GPs do has a dedicated outcome and a proper scientific base, which means that we know that what we are doing is worthwhile medicine and that it genuinely improves patient care.
	A few years ago, if a patient with suspected cancer came to see me I had to beg, borrow and steal an urgent outpatient appointment. If I was very lucky, and ready to call on the old boys' network, I might have been able to get one in a month or two. Now, I can guarantee such a patient an appointment with a cancer specialist within two weeks, and probably a lot sooner.
	We are now able to do things that were simply not possible in the old days. I can get open-access MRI scans and endoscopies, and I can investigate people far more rigorously inside the practice. That means that I am more likely to reach the correct diagnosis far sooner than would have been possible in the days when I had to wait for a consultant to confirm my fears.

Howard Stoate: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and it is deeply regrettable that the Opposition seem hell bent on getting rid of targets. He is right to say that targets have driven up standards in the NHS hugely and that they have massively improved patient outcomes. We are now able to measure the number of people with particular conditions. We can check that they are properly managed, recall those who need further treatment, and ensure that they are on the best drugs available. That is the way to go.
	Although the history of prevention has not been very good, I have tried to make it clear that we are now at the point when we can take advantage of modern techniques to ensure that preventive medicine is used properly, but there are risks. As I noted in an earlier intervention, the previous Government appeared to want to improve patient outcomes and health but did not ensure that treatment was evidence based. The checks that doctors were required to carry out under the 1990 GP contract quickly led to disillusionment, because they were not based on anything that could be recognised as good patient care.
	The national screening committee has made it clear that it will recommend treatments to the Government only when there is evidence to prove their effectiveness. That is very important. There used to be the so-called "stands to reason" test among GPs: doctors would say that it stood to reason that measuring a person's blood pressure or cholesterol would do them some good. Yet that is not so, because there must be evidence that proves that interventions in those circumstance will change outcomes.
	Getting such evidence is difficult, and that is why it has taken longer than I had hoped for the national screening committee to recommend triple A screening. It has now made that recommendation, because the evidence that that screening is worth spending on is now sufficiently solid. It has been shown that triple A screening can save around 1,600 lives a year among those men over 60 who are most prone to the diseases that it can detect.
	I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Men's Health Forum. Along with Ministers and the all-party group on men's health, I have worked very closely with that organisation to ensure that interventions shown to be worth while and to provide value for money are adopted. As a result of all our hard work, the Prime Minister has announced that the programme that we have been advocating would be taken up. That is a great improvement over relying on interventions that might not have been so effective and might have wasted public money.
	The NHS has a rosy future. New money is still being put in every year, and I am also pleased that the Prime Minister is not afraid to promise continuing reform. Unless we continue to reform the NHS and to reconfigure services, we will have no way to ensure that patients get access to the most modern treatments, in the most suitable setting and with the most appropriate staff mix. It is important that we continue our programme of reform, to ensure that all patients have access to what they need.
	Choice is also topical. In his latest speech, the Prime Minister said to us that he wants to make sure that patients are at the centre of choice. Patients now have a choice of where they are treated, to a large extent when they are treated, and to an increasing extent by whom they are treated. That is important, because if we are to expect people to take more responsibility for themselves and for their own health care, they have to have access to the information they need, and they have to feel that they, not the Government and not necessarily their doctor, are in charge of their condition. It is their condition, their body and their future; they must be central to making decisions on what happens. I believe that if we give patients that right, they will rise to the occasion and take the responsibility to improve their own health outcome, which will be important to improving their long-term condition.
	I have mentioned how welcome it is that the Government are to introduce triple A screening. Some of the other measures the Prime Minister mentioned, such as screening at-risk groups for heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes, are also important.

Andy Reed: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I know that he takes preventive health seriously, because we have been in the gym at the same time twice this week, so I congratulate him on the efforts that he takes. I will focus on one, small, specific issue to do with preventive health services, so as to allow other Members their full time allocation.
	The debate is topical because of the structural changes to Sport England. One might wonder why on earth that was a matter for a topical debate on the health service. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is rightly making Sport England concentrate on sport. That means that a vast amount of work is being done—work that is increasingly important to all of us who have campaigned on sports and physical activity issues over the past decade. We recognise that the Department of Health, through the PCTs working with agencies such as local government, will be vital to increasing participation in physical activity and sport. That is needed if we are to prevent problems arising from what is probably the most important issue facing the country—the levels of obesity that are likely in future.
	The Foresight report demonstrated that by 2050, if no action is taken, or even if current levels of action are maintained, it is likely that up to 65 per cent. of men and 50 per cent. of women will be clinically obese. That means that 40 per cent. of the national health service budget will be taken up by that issue. If there is a ticking time bomb, it is obesity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has been at the forefront of campaigning on the matter for a decade, and I follow. I am glad that he spoke on another topic today. If he had spoken about obesity, he would be the expert on it. We have talked anecdotally about the impact of obesity, but the Foresight report and some of the work that has been done by NICE, which is a well kept secret and does not seem to be in the public domain, has demonstrated that tackling physical activity levels and building in lifestyle changes to deal with obesity is one of the most cost-effective steps that we can take.
	I have some figures. NICE works on the basis that it would recommend a drug up to a cost limit of £20,000 per life year. By contrast, the work that it has done on physical activity in the workplace and obesity, and the work that it is doing on physical activity and the environment, indicate a cost of just £1,000 per life year for the introduction of physical activity. So, as most speakers have said, prevention is better than cure. If we spend £1,000 now, the likelihood is that we are helping to avoid the prospect of 40 per cent. of the health service budget in 2050 being devoted solely to tackling the problems of obesity.
	I am one of those who has been going around saying that obesity will kill the present generation and our life chances will be reduced. We could be the first generation to see a reduction in our life expectancy. Foresight and some of the work carried out by NICE suggest that that is a myth. The reality and the problem is that obesity is an inefficient killer. That is not much consolation. Obesity makes us ill for a long time. It reduces our life chances eventually, but in the meantime we are an enormous burden on the national health service. More importantly for the individual, it is an enormous burden on their lifestyle. We need to make sure that obesity is at the top of the health agenda.
	In this crucial period during which the future direction of Sport England is decided, the Department should make it clear that it is willing to work with PCTs in local partnerships including county sports partnerships and local authorities, to encourage physical activity and bring about lifestyle changes. The Department cannot shirk that responsibility.
	Now that the importance of school sports is recognised, about 30 per cent. of those leaving school will take part in activities that we recognise as sport—team games and organised sporting activity. About 50 per cent., hopefully, will want to have a fairly active lifestyle and engage in other activities that reduce our chances of becoming obese. But 10 to 20 per cent. will require interventions, and that is where more work is needed—for example, among young girls aged 13 or 14, where there is a significant drop-off in participation rates, among young Asian women, who have cultural issues, and among those with disability and special needs, who are still missing out on sporting activity in schools. Those who are involved in school sport and even the Youth Sport Trust, in discussions this week, recognise that progress has been made elsewhere, but admit that it is lacking for those with disabilities and special needs at school.
	Over the coming weeks and months, while Sport England is developing a strategy, it is crucial that the Department of Health offers guidance and support to PCTs to ensure that sport is delivered at a local level. Local partnerships exist already. I chair my own county sports partnerships. We are fortunate that the director of public health in Leicestershire is a triathlete. He is part-funded by the PCT and part-funded by the local authority. That situation represents a win-win, but it does not necessarily replicate itself around the country. In schools a decade ago, if there was a good head who was interested in sports, sport happened at the school. I want to make sure that for sport, there is no postcode lottery.
	Some PCTs have demonstrated the good practice of GP referral schemes, physical activity co-ordinators, creating the built environment and workplace activity. We should recognise that people's lifestyles are changing dramatically, particularly from a sports perspective. By 2010, 65 per cent. of people will be working an atypical working week, so working 9 to 5 or a 3 o'clock kick-off for a football or rugby game will no longer be the norm. Sport, physical activity and recreation must take account of that shift in balance. That is why the workplace will be increasingly important. Governing bodies of sport and others need to try and work out what form sport and physical activity will take in the next 10 to 20 years. It will be very different. Everyone knows how difficult it is after a long day at work to come home and motivate oneself to go back out to do something physical.
	We know that 20 per cent. of people will always be keen to do sport and physical activity and another 20 per cent. can be encouraged, but the couch potatoes and others in the middle should not be put off or frightened by the prospect of having to take up a sport or to do something really dramatic such as joining a gym, because we can build a lot of activity into our daily lives. The World Health Organisation target of five times 30 minutes of moderate activity a week needs to be explained to people. We may be at the slightly difficult level of talking about active hoovering, but moderate exercise such as gardening and walking is enough to meet the WHO definition.
	We need to ensure that in our social marketing, which will probably be one of the most important things that we do, we sell the idea of building physical activity into our daily lives. I do not envy the Government because I have seen the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology paper on changing behaviour, which says that that is one of the hardest things to do. The problem is that everyone recognises the need to change their behaviour in order to reduce the potential for obesity, but as with new year resolutions, we may do well until the end of January but come February all resolve goes out of the window. We must change the whole way in which we lead our lives.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister met the premier rugby clubs recently who have been working on behalf of the Department on the five-a-day campaign. I visited Saracens rugby club to see its community programme and went to some of the schools with the players. The motivation that results from being told by a leading sports star to eat five portions of fruit or vegetables a day is far greater than when a politician, someone in a white coat, or even—with all due respect—a doctor says so. I saw the motivation created as a result of the programme being delivered by sportspeople throughout the country, and I would urge that there should be a connection between sport and more moderate levels of physical activity.
	This is a topical debate because the next few weeks, or possibly the next couple of months, will be crucial to delivering what most of us in sport have wanted for a decade or so, and that is for the Department for Health to take a real interest in increasing physical activity and changing lifestyles to tackle the obesity time bomb that is heading our way.

Des Browne: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of armed forces personnel.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate issues relating to the men and women of the armed forces. It is common ground that they are remarkable people, who perform extremely difficult and arduous tasks in some of the most dangerous places in the world. I have been deeply impressed by their work and, especially through my visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen at first hand the magnificent efforts that they make. Everything we achieve is down to them and they have my deepest gratitude and most profound respect.
	As a Government, we have a duty to ensure that we offer armed services personnel—and their families—the support that they need and deserve. Delivering that poses several challenges, but I believe that the Government are rising to meet them and will continue to do so.
	In the past 18 months, we have made real improvements to the welfare package that we offer our forces. I will not list them all in detail here, but they include: the introduction of a tax-free operational bonus of £2,230; council tax discount for those on operations; free post; more free telephone calls and internet access; a new child care voucher scheme that can be used both in the UK and overseas; improvements to mental health treatment; a military managed ward at Selly Oak, and an increase in the number of military nurses there. That is alongside all the improvements made to ensure that those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have the best equipment and kit possible.
	Hon. Members will have seen reports in the media this morning about a small number of UK service personnel and civilians who received life-saving emergency blood transfusions of US blood while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That blood might not have had a valid retrospective test. First, I should stress that the blood transfusions saved those people's lives. However, even though only a small number of personnel—18—are affected and the risks of infection are very low, we take the matter extremely seriously. Immediately on learning about the risk to our people, my Department acted quickly and promptly to establish who might be involved and where those people were and to ensure that they were offered the appropriate support, counselling and testing. All 18 UK service personnel, whether still serving or veterans, have now been contacted. I would like to reassure hon. Members that, while our own procedures for blood transfusions on operations are robust, we are not complacent and review them regularly.
	We have achieved a lot in the support that we provide not only for our forces but for their families. Families have a key role in supporting their loved ones. Without them, the British armed forces could not be the success story they are. The frequency with which they are required to move location affects their access to health services, the education for their children, employment prospects for partners and, obviously, their personal relationships. We need to take stock of what we have already achieved and what more is needed.
	That is why the Government have launched a cross-Government personnel strategy, which is considering—for the first time—what more might be done across all Departments to support past and present members of the armed forces and their families. The personnel Command Paper will consider the progress already made, identify areas for improvement and propose new initiatives for our and other Departments. Key matters on which we will concentrate include accommodation, education, health, welfare and social care, inquests, and veterans support, which cuts across many of those issues and others.

John Baron: I welcome the review of accommodation because it is important. However, given that the cross-party Public Accounts Committee has described nearly half of all service accommodation as sub-standard and that the Army's surveys show that half the soldiers feel that the maintenance of their accommodation is not what it should be, does the Secretary of State at least understand the strong feeling of many soldiers that the Government have forgotten the first world war concept of "homes fit for heroes"?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I shall tackle in more detail in my speech. To give the matter, which is so important to our armed forces, the priority that it deserves, I shall respond to his point generally now and deal with some aspects in more detail in a few moments.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the issue as an important one. I would have more respect for him if his memory of how we came to be in this position was a bit more comprehensive than it appears to be. I say that because we have discussed the issue over some months and I have been impressed by the ability of hon. Members on both sides of the House to recognise that it is a legacy problem, arising from a failure to invest in that accommodation over many decades—and, in some cases, over the best part of a century.
	That means that all of us in the House have a responsibility. The issue needs to be addressed in this century, and within a reasonable time period. My responsibility as the Secretary of State is to identify the resources, and a time scale and a programme of work that is reasonable, taking into account all the other challenges that go with dealing with accommodation. They include the fact that we have busy armed forces that have to operate in the same environment in which we carry out that work and the fact that people have to live there. There must be a recognition of the capacity challenge in relation to our ability to do that and the logistical challenge in relation to planning. I have repeatedly set out our plans on that and will do so again in this speech. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is insufficient—that there is a faster and more efficient way of doing the work and that his party intends to put in additional resources of such a scale that the work will be completed quicker—he should give us chapter and verse on that. I would be pleased to hear that, because I have heard no such arguments from anybody.
	We have to accept that the responsibility will stretch over a period of time. I believe that I, as the Secretary of State, and the Department are facing up to it. We are putting the investment in and I recognise the effect that it has. There are manifest improvements. I invite the hon. Gentleman to go round the estate and visit the places where those improvements are not just manifest, but are being enjoyed on a considerable scale by our armed forces. He has that invitation, and he can rise to his feet to tell me that he accepts it. If he does, I will make arrangements for him to go and see some of the best, as well as some of the worst if he likes.

John Baron: I welcome that invitation from the Defence Secretary and will indeed take him up on it. Perhaps he would also like to join me in a visit to the cavalry barracks in Hounslow, to which the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers will return in the spring. I will show him accommodation that is clearly sub-standard and that has been condemned in the past.
	However, to return to the Defence Secretary's earlier point, although I accept that we cannot consider the issue in isolation, the Government have been in power for 10 years. No matter what he does, he cannot run away from that fact, nor can he run away from the fact that the Army's own surveys and the House's—

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It would not serve this debate well for me to go through all the individual challenges that we face in accommodation and on the estate. It would serve us and our relationship with the armed forces well if we recognised that the issue has been neglected for far too long and that it is now being addressed on a scale that will improve the situation within a reasonable period of time. I will ensure that the resources that are devoted to that are properly invested and that if I find more, I will devote them to it, bearing in mind the challenges created by other work going on across the country on securing the building capacity to carry it out.
	Let me move on. The personnel Command Paper to which I referred is being prepared. The Government would welcome constructive contributions to the strategy that underpins that. I assure the House that all contributions from right hon. and hon. Members will be considered.
	We also want to see the nation as a whole understanding and appreciating our armed forces. That is why we are undertaking a national recognition study to identify exactly what more can be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is leading that study and I am sure that the whole House looks forward to hearing his proposals. The end-result will, I hope, be a nation that better demonstrates its appreciation of what our brave servicemen and women do on our behalf. They deserve no less.

Des Browne: The issues that underpin the hon. Gentleman's question generate a significant amount of support across the House and in our wider society, as is also seen in campaigns to achieve the same. They are welcome to the extent that they show the level of support generated in recognition of what our armed forces are doing. I am sure that he, among others, is particularly well placed to understand what I am going to say.
	As a Minister of the Crown, I am very wary of expressing opinions about individual medals and honours for the very reason that this country has a system that relies on a process that is independent of politicians—and most certainly independent of politicians in the Executive. Taking decisions about whether medals should be struck for service, valour or other contributions involves a process that this Department reports and accounts for, but in respect of which decision-making lies outside and independent of that Department, which is where it should be. The assessment of whether recommendations should be made to the independent committee is made in the traditional way—and it is now constitutional, I believe, as it is a convention of the constitution that is well practised by the chiefs of staff. That is where it is should lie. That is why, when I am constantly invited to express views about this issue, I resist the temptation to do so.
	Candidly, at the end of the day, if most politicians are honest with themselves, we all understand why it is better if politicians stand well away from this particular form of Executive decision-making. I suspect that if it were left to politicians, there would be a tendency to over-decorate and present awards and baubles to too many people. That is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but I think that he understands my point, which is why the convention exists. I trust that he will allow me to respect that convention, without diminishing my tribute to the motivation that underpins his argument.

Des Browne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have enormous respect for his knowledge of the circumstances, but I do not accept that there is a crisis, although I do accept that there are issues in relation to retention. We are operating in an employment market that is very different from the one in which the forces operated 10 years or more ago, when many young men in my constituency had no alternative but to join the armed forces. We are competing now. Another crucially important point is that the added value of an armed forces training makes it a very valuable commodity. The private sector is competing to attract away from the armed forces people whom we have formed, matured and trained to a level which, in my view, would not be reached in any other walk of life.
	Those are the realities, and they face not just our armed forces but armed forces throughout the developed world. All the Defence Ministers to whom I speak face the same challenges and problems. I recognise that we must develop methods, along with a modern response to the armed forces by society which is such that people will not only volunteer or allow themselves to be recruited but, once trained and effective, will stay in the forces and continue to contribute. We have had considerable success in some areas, although there are issues which I do not seek to avoid. The retention incentives need to be developed—and we have been developing them with some success, as is clear from the examples that I have given.
	Obviously, a high percentage of personnel are currently deployed on operations and, because of that, harmony levels have been affected. Harmony levels have, however, improved over the past year by 3 per cent. for the Army, and they have remained steady for the Royal Navy, but they have worsened for the RAF, with 6.7 per cent. breaching harmony compared with 2.9 per cent. a year ago. I am grateful to all our personnel for their efforts, but particularly to those whose harmony guidelines have not been met. We have a duty to recognise such commitment; living up to that duty underpins everything I have set out today.
	In recognition of the Government's commitment to the armed forces, we granted them the best public sector pay deal last year: 3.3 per cent. In particular, we addressed the concerns of the lowest ranks by increasing their pay by more than 9 per cent. In fact, in all but one of the last five years armed forces salary growth has exceeded that of the whole economy.
	One of the key issues affecting both families and single people in the forces is accommodation. To be frank, when our men and women in uniform return from theatre to their barracks, it is deplorable that some of them return to a very poor standard of accommodation. Progress is being made. In the last financial year, we delivered 5,822 modernised bed spaces; this financial year, we expect to deliver approximately 7,000 modernised bed spaces, and in the next financial year we also plan to deliver 7,000 bed spaces. Overall, it is expected that about 60,000 modernised bed spaces will be delivered by April 2013.
	For the last year our public position has been that some £5 billion will be spent on housing and other accommodation over the next decade. That figure was an extrapolation of future spend based, in part, on current spending levels, and was made before the outcome of the comprehensive spending review was known. However, the £5 billion figure did not take into account a number of large private finance initiative projects that include living accommodation. The most notable of them is Project Allenby/Connaught, which will provide modern living and working accommodation for some 18,000 military and civilian personnel in the Salisbury plain and Aldershot garrisons. Maintenance and leasing of service families accommodation and single living accommodation worldwide was also excluded. In addition, the amount we plan to spend on maintenance work is now higher than that included in the £5 billion figure. Accordingly, we have reassessed our likely spend on accommodation for the next 10 years to take account of those elements previously excluded. The total amount will in fact be £8.4 billion. Of that, £3.1 billion will be spent on new-build and upgraded accommodation, £2.3 billion on refurbishment and maintenance and £3 billion on routine costs, including rent, other leasing costs and the equivalent of council tax. Over that same period, we also expect to receive £2.4 billion in rental income from service personnel, leaving a net expenditure of £6 billion.
	We want to help personnel become independent home owners. We already have in place the offer of a personal loan towards a deposit after four years of service, but I think that we can improve on that and, as part of the Command Paper, work is being done to introduce arrangements to make housing more affordable for military families. We have also just extended the key worker status scheme so that all servicemen and women can qualify for the open market homebuy scheme—a scheme that can boost the buying power of a forces family by up to a third. Finally, we have agreed with the Department for Communities and Local Government that those leaving the services will have access to social housing on par with everyone else in the area in which they will settle; they will no longer go to the bottom of the local authority housing lists as they did before.

Liam Fox: May I fully associate myself and the Conservative party with the praise offered by the Secretary of State for the courage, professionalism and sacrifices of our armed forces? As we all recover from the celebration and, in some cases, the excesses of the Christmas period, it is worth remembering that this time of year brings hardship and sacrifice to the family members of some of our armed forces. Unfortunately, war does not stop for Christmas, and our brave servicemen and women, along with their families, have done an outstanding job 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the holiday season. While the rest of the country enjoyed the Christmas break, they were defending our security every single minute.
	Knowing that your husband or wife, mum or dad, or child spent the holiday in harm's way brings little happiness, of course, to service family members. That is why it is so important that the Government not only get their military policy right, but are open and honest with service members and their families. That is why spin for political gain is so damaging.
	The Prime Minister announced on 2 October that force levels in Iraq would be reduced by 1,000 from 5,500 to 4,500 by the end of the year. No doubt it made many family members very happy to learn that their loved ones might come home in time for Christmas. But like everything else to do with this Government and the armed forces, one has to take a close look at the small print. We now know that when the Prime Minister made his announcement in early October he had given himself a head start of almost 500 troops. Figures released by the Government show that on 9 September, three weeks before the Prime Minister's announcement, there were only 5,030 troops in Iraq, not the 5,500 that he mentioned in his announcement.
	Far from the number of British troops in Iraq being reduced by 1,000, troop figures released just before the holiday recess show that levels in Iraq have been reduced by only 120. During the same period, MOD figures show that the total number of British troops deployed in support of the mission in Iraq, but based elsewhere in the Gulf in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and at sea, has actually increased by 570. Far from being home by Christmas, British personnel were simply deployed to other locations in the Gulf region. Whether one is in Iraq or somewhere else, separation is still separation and there must have been many disappointed households this Christmas.

Liam Fox: They do indeed. I am not complaining about the military decisions or the presence of the personnel: I am complaining about the fact that the Prime Minister purposely gave one impression, knowing that it was at least partly not true even as he said it.
	During the last defence policy debate on 16 October, the Secretary of State hinted that he was willing to give personnel diverted from service in Iraq to other bases in the region the operational allowance. Now we know, according to a letter sent from his Department to the three services on 2 November, that some British personnel based in Kuwait, specifically at Camp Beuhring the Kuwait support facility, are now entitled to the operational allowance. The appropriate section from the letter states:
	"Following advice from PJHQ, the qualifying locations have been reviewed and personnel deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan are to continue to receive the Allowance. That said, personnel who are soon to relocate from Iraq to Beuhring in Kuwait will continue to be eligible for the Operational Allowance, as they will support coalition operations in Iraq."
	Is that clear? Not really, because by that argument one would have thought that those at Al-Udeid in Qatar or working with Nimrods in Oman, or those elsewhere in Kuwait, were also supporting coalition operations in Iraq. But the letter goes on:
	"Other Service personnel deployed to Kuwait will not be eligible for the Allowance."
	The Secretary of State dug a hole for himself during the debate on 16 October and frantic talks were held with the Treasury to do something to get him out of it. But rather than a fair remuneration package that supports all personnel deployed in support of both Operations Telic and Herrick, including those in Kuwait, and the wider Gulf region, the Government has produced an inconsistent, incoherent mish-mash. We now have a shambolic situation whereby some personnel in Kuwait will receive the operational allowance while others will not. Those supporting Nimrod reconnaissance missions in the Gulf, the dangers of which have been highlighted, will not receive it. Does anyone seriously think that that is a fair or satisfactory state of affairs?
	That brings us to a related issue. Troops in Iraq are rightly given some recognition with the award of the Iraq medal. Is that medal now to be given to the personnel serving in Kuwait who also receive the operational allowance? One would think that that would only be logical. How can troops be given the operational allowance based on the personal danger to them and not be given the medal? Will they get it?

Liam Fox: I am grateful for that assurance, but I would have thought that the Secretary of State and his Ministers would want to know about that when making decisions. Such things impact on morale. If those serving get different allowances and if different people who serve together may or may not get a medal, the whole thing is a bit of a dog's breakfast.
	The plans for the council tax refund are linked to the operational allowance, so will some in Kuwait receive a council tax rebate while others will not, because some receive the operational allowance while others do not? It is a simple question. Either they will or they will not. The Secretary of State seems to be telling us that the Government do not really know who gets medals, whether that is related to the allowance or whether the council tax rebate will be related to the operational allowance. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The movement of troops on such a scale was in the planning process for weeks if not months. Surely Ministers have simply forgotten, ignored or not bothered to understand the complexity and interaction of the separate issues.
	The Government were in such a rush to gain political points by announcing a draw-down in Iraq that they have overlooked detailed issues that matter a lot to those serving in the region. We are left with a situation where some troops in Kuwait will get the operational allowance while others will not. Troops just across the border in Iraq will get the Operation Telic medal, but those receiving the operational allowance in Kuwait might not. Thousands of British troops across the Gulf region who do important jobs supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan might get nothing at all. What sort of message does that send out to our forces? No wonder there is a problem with retention and morale.
	The House is used to hearing comments from the Secretary of State, his Ministers and even the Prime Minister about how they value and support our service personnel. We can argue about the scale of that support—we have and we will—given the considerable overstretch that we see in all three services. However, surely we can unite—as we did before Christmas when we debated the military covenant—in the belief that, unlike any other Crown servants, we owe our service personnel not only our gratitude but fair recompense for the uniquely dangerous work that they undertake on our behalf.
	If the Government are serious about upholding their half of the military covenant, a couple of issues must be addressed. Most of us are aware of the importance and value that serving personnel place on the armed forces pension scheme. Can the Secretary of State or the Minister tell us what work is being undertaken by the Department on the cost and structure of the armed forces pension scheme? Is the Department reviewing the affordability of the military pension and, if so, is that as a result of Treasury pressure? If a review is under way, the armed forces and the House will want to know why the work is being undertaken, who is undertaking it and what terms of reference have been issued to the review team. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that when he winds up.
	The second issue that must be considered is armed forces pay. Like the police, our armed forces have no right to strike but, unlike the police, they have no federation to represent them. That is why it is vital that the Government accept the valuable work of the independent pay review body. The Secretary of State's message today of support for our armed forces will be viewed against the action taken when the report comes out.
	We do not know what the pay review body will recommend, although the Secretary of State might. The armed forces will be looking for the Government to implement the review body's recommendations in full but, if for some reason they decide not to do so, I hope that the Secretary of State will explain to the House of Commons, and to our armed forces, exactly why.

Liam Fox: My right hon. Friend is, of course, correct. I can say with all sincerity that it is hard not to feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State, given the budgetary pressures that he is going to face as a result of the spending settlement that he has received. That is why I did not ask him for a specific commitment on the pay review body's recommendations, but only for a commitment to explain any decision fully to the House. We are aware of the pressures facing the MOD as a result of its current financial settlement.
	Armed forces personnel do not live in a vacuum, and the current high levels of deployment have a great impact on service families. If we were to say that a group of people in our society move home more often than the norm, have lower levels of home ownership, higher levels of substandard housing, rising divorce rates and higher levels of family separation, we would not be describing the disadvantaged in the inner cities. We would be talking about our service families, who offer so much to this country.
	We have spoken many times recently in the House about housing, health care and education for service families, and about the need for proper mental health services operating on a through-life basis. Dealing with all those problems is a matter of urgency, but there are places where some people are already making a difference.
	In Cyprus, for example, the organisation Relate is carrying out splendid work to help to hold service families together, with excellent results. The same work could be undertaken more widely here at home if there were greater Government support. I ask the Secretary of State to look at the work that Relate is doing and at the high success rates that it is achieving, because it has brought something very positive to bear on the welfare of service families. I hope that he will find an opportunity to meet Relate staff and discover what help that organisation can give to service families in the UK.
	The Government talk about how they value our armed forces, but their inaction and the subsequent breaking of the military covenant have merely added to the strain already placed on our armed forces. That will have a long-term impact on Britain's military readiness to meet the unexpected challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead.
	The next Government will inherit a military that is both overstretched and undermanned, and in possession of equipment that is worn out as a result of the on-going operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not an assumption; it is a fact. Equipment is wearing out faster than expected—faster than in the original plans—and there seems to be no visible attempt by the Government to do much about it.
	We are still not properly prepared or equipped for our current undertaking in Afghanistan. When I visited that country a few weeks ago, I found that we had too few serviceable Apache or Chinook helicopters. Spare parts had not been given sufficient consideration in advance, and the current tempo of operations means that there is no option on the ground but to cannibalise other aircraft. The Government's catastrophic decision in 2004 to cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion is now biting hard. Even some of the excellent new Mastiff armoured vehicles—I give the Government full credit in that respect—are sitting idle because of a lack of spare parts.
	In personnel and manning, the numbers are only getting worse, despite the gloss the Secretary of State tried to put on them. In April last year, the Government's own agency reported that the British armed forces were 5,790 trained personnel short; in December last year, we learned that, in the span of six months, that figure had increased by 1,240 to more than 7,000. The position is deteriorating—it is reaching crisis point. That is a scandal.
	Troops are leaving in droves, to the delight of their disenchanted families. The July 2007 Public Accounts Committee report on recruitment and retention stated that
	"70% of those intending to leave and 53% of those who had left said that their inability to plan ahead in life outside work was an important factor in their decision to leave."
	That is a direct result of overstretch. Service members are now deployed more, with less time in between deployments, which places a tremendous burden on service families who are left behind in the UK.
	After six years of intense fighting and overstretch, our military is nowhere close to being capable of meeting this Government's defence planning assumptions. The 1998 strategic defence review, which is 10 years old this year, is, for all intents and purposes, out of date. We need another strategic defence review.
	Since 1997, the percentage of total Government spending allocated to defence has fallen from 6.7 to 5.9 per cent. That is a drastic reduction, given that that period covers major operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq, but it reflects where defence comes in this Government's priorities. The first duty of Government is the defence and security of the British people. In using our armed forces personnel for that purpose, the Government have a responsibility and moral obligation to ensure that they are fully trained and fully equipped and that their families are adequately cared for. To date, this Government have failed—not only part-time, but second rate.

Willie Rennie: I will leave the matter there for today.
	My main proposition is that we are asking too much from our armed forces. The strategic defence review in 1998 envisaged one major operation, such as Gulf 1, or a lesser deployment, such as Bosnia, or a small brigade-sized operation elsewhere. But since 2003 we have been operating on two major fronts, and, as we have heard today, that is leading to overstretch. We are breaching the harmony guidelines and have done so for the last seven years.
	The Army harmony guidelines clearly state that over a 30-month period people should not be away from their base for more than 415 days, but 10 per cent. of the Army are breaching those guidelines—that is 10,000 personnel. What we do not know from the figures is whether there are repeat offenders—whether people breach the harmony guidelines over a number of years. Therefore, we do not know how many people have been affected in the longer term rather than just in the previous year. The medical services are suffering the worst. Among general surgeons, 21 per cent. are breaching the harmony guidelines.
	We have also seen huge shortages as a result of the breaching of the harmony guidelines. It is a vicious circle. When we ask too much of our armed forces they leave early, which results in shortages, which in turn leads to more overstretch and breaching of the harmony guidelines. We need to get a grip of that, because it results in the disillusionment of huge numbers of armed forces personnel. Ministry of Defence surveys showed that only three in 10 felt valued, and in one in four personnel morale was low or very low. As a result, more are leaving the forces, which results in retention difficulties. During the past year, 5,000 people have left the forces, and among officers the situation is particularly bad. In the last six months of 2007, 1,350 officers left the forces, which is double the figure for the previous 12 months. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, 6,000 officers have left the forces. As a result, we are 7,000 below strength in the armed forces as a whole.
	Over the Christmas period, I met a longstanding friend who has been in the forces for 10 years. He is a skilled tradesman and over the past few years he has been asked to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. Having just returned from Iraq, he has been asked to go back to Afghanistan, but he has decided that he has had enough, and many of his friends feel exactly the same because we are asking far too much of our forces. Hon. Members have heard me say before that we are now trawling around looking for volunteers, such as storemen from Faslane, bandsmen who are going out to Cyprus, and even politicians, including Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Willie Rennie: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point, and I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with it, on a private basis.
	Ministers shook their heads when we talked about minimum force protection, but when we visited the airbase last year they were adamant that 4,500 was the minimum that would be required just for protection purposes, not to conduct many more operations beyond that. How has that figure suddenly changed to 2,500? Are we now relying on the Iraqi forces for our protection? If so, the House has a right to know. If not, we need a more detailed explanation as to the reason for the sudden reduction. It is clear that we have been part of the problem in southern Iraq and that we should withdraw from there. It used to be that 90 per cent. of attacks were on our forces in the south, but the number of attacks fell dramatically when we withdrew from Basra palace in the heart of Basra city. It is therefore clear that we should get out of Basra and out of Iraq altogether.
	I am grateful for the Secretary of State's details on some of the progress that has been made on inquests, but it is still embarrassing, and a travesty for the families, that it has taken far too long to conduct them—months, sometimes years. So far, the system has been unable to cope. Will the Minister give a wee bit more detail about what further progress he hopes to make in the next year? Have discussions with the Scottish Government led to any results? If some of the inquests or fatal accident inquiries were conducted in Scotland, that would relieve some of the pressure in England.
	On housing, more than half of armed forces single living accommodation has been independently assessed as substandard. That is a significant reason for many officers and soldiers leaving the forces. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has determined that 14,000 bed spaces have been lost since 2001, yet during that period £2.2 billion-worth of asset sales has gone from the MOD to the Treasury. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for providing more details on the £5 billion figure, which has now grown to £8 billion or so. Unfortunately, however, some spinning went on previously as to what that money was. It was presented as new money—extra investment in housing—when in fact much of it was going on rent and maintenance. It would be helpful to have a wee bit more clarity on some of the figures as previously presented. As Ministers have said, the basic problem is that we are relying on the legacy that was left to us by the Conservative party, which sold off MOD housing to Annington Homes—the most disgraceful waste of money and resources that there has ever been. The Conservatives should say less on this subject in future because their record bears some scrutiny.
	Progress has been made on health, as I have seen for myself through the Defence Committee. Defence Medical Services does a good job. The Selly Oak facility is first class, providing excellent, quality care for our armed forces in a military-led environment. I would like there to be a move further towards a military-only environment; I think the Minister said that more military nurses are being recruited.

James Arbuthnot: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) on two of the comments that he made. First, he said that this debate is too short. The new topical debates, which have turned out to be simple re-launches of the Government's current initiatives, do not seem to be a good idea, particularly when they take time out of armed forces debates, which tend to take place on Thursday afternoons. The second point on which I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman is the fact that his constituency will receive from Bordon in my constituency many people who work in mechanical engineering. He is lucky to have those people coming to his constituency. When they arrive, I hope to be invited to visit and see how they are getting along.
	This is a short debate. Last week the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust produced a report suggesting that the Ministry of Defence was glamorising war. I do not think that it is doing that at all. The Minister was absolutely right to suggest that it is not in the Ministry of Defence's interests to give, in any sense, a false idea of what people are going in for when they join the armed forces. However, it is also right to draw attention to the benefits of a career in the armed forces. In many respects, it is a fantastic career. One gets qualifications and finds a camaraderie that cannot be found in any other career. It is therefore right to pay tribute to the type of career that can be had in the armed forces, as well as to the extraordinary and wonderful men and women who take up that career.
	It is also right to pay tribute to the families of our armed forces. We often think of the armed forces as they serve in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in many cases the real difficulty is faced by those who are left behind at home doing the worrying, but without the constant adrenalin and local support that the work of the armed forces involves. All that—the men and women of our armed forces, the careers that they provide and the quality that they generally produce—is now a part of what it means to be British and a is a matter of national pride.
	I should like to make another tiny point about national pride, part of which derives from military bands and the music that they play. They bring to an emotional head some of the strength of our military. I worry nowadays that our military bands are being reduced in number and that we have taken a financial approach to them, without appreciating the strength that they give to our armed forces. I hope, one of these days, to be able to persuade the Defence Select Committee to carry out an inquiry into our military bands because they are so important.
	My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred to overstretch and the Secretary of State referred to stretch: it does not really matter which word is used, because the reality is what matters—and the reality is as follows. On the planning assumptions, our armed forces have now been operating above the levels for which they are resourced for seven of the last eight years—for every year since 2002. It is utterly unacceptable that that has gone on for so long. We can manage that sort of problem for a year or two—perhaps for a year or three—but continuing with it for so long is unacceptable. The Chief of the General Staff has said that
	"we now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected".
	That is also unacceptable.
	The Ministry of Defence has a target—public service agreement target 3—to
	"generate forces, which can be deployed, sustained and recovered at the scales of effort required to meet the Government's strategic objectives".
	That is not at all surprising, one would think. It seems a perfectly ordinary test; it is, actually, a crucial test for the armed forces of this country and of any country. However, according to the MOD in its most recent quarterly report:
	"Owing to the continuing high level of operational commitment, we do not now expect to reach the target level by April 2008".
	It will therefore not be able to generate the forces that can be
	"deployed, sustained and recovered at the scales of effort required to meet the Government's strategic objectives."
	That is deeply worrying.
	Reductions in the commitments to Iraq and the Balkans are welcome in that regard. Some people expect us to be completely out of Iraq soon. I have to warn the Secretary of State that the Defence Committee had a meeting this morning with the United States House Armed Services Committee, which made it plain that for the US to remain in Iraq without substantial support from its closest friend, the UK, would not be well understood or received in America. We need to take that into account.
	What of the harmony guidelines? The Army's guidelines have been mentioned, but the RAF guidelines say:
	"Unit Tour Intervals should be no less than 16 months".
	However, that is routinely breached. RAF regiment field squadrons have an average tour interval of around 10 and a half months.
	We met the Chinook crews, who are based at Odiham in my constituency, when we were in Afghanistan last year. They are flying all hours of the day and night—thank God, because of the critical work they do in support of our armed forces. Their tours are long, they get little time to rest, and they are flying in the most difficult conditions imaginable. Landing a Chinook in the dust of Afghanistan is a highly skilled task. People cannot see the ground because of the dust blowing up. At night, it is even harder, and people are probably being shot at, after having very little sleep. Luckily, our crews are the best in the business. They manage to cope with all that, but we must never take them for granted. We sent them there; they are doing all this for us. We must treat them right, pay them well, house them well, educate their children well, provide proper medical care and give them the very deep respect that they fully deserve.
	I pay tribute to the Defence Select Committee, whose members work extremely hard at what they do. In recent months, we have completed reports on the defence education service, which is doing a good job in circumstances of great turbulence. On housing, we drew attention to our worry that it will take so long to get the standard of all defence housing up to an acceptable level. The Secretary of State made some perfectly fair points about that today. We are just concluding our inquiry on Defence Medical Services. Of course, we have some concerns. For example, there is a severe shortfall in some specific specialities, but we have found much in the Defence Medical Services that is excellent.
	My final point concerns visits to our armed forces deployed abroad. The Secretary of State often visits them, as do other Defence Ministers, and I think that as a result they have a good understanding of the experiences that our forces are undergoing. The same cannot be said of the Ministers who make the financial decisions—the Ministers in the Treasury. I welcomed the Prime Minister's recent visits to our troops, but while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer such visits were rare.
	I hope that Treasury Ministers will arrange a programme of visits. If they do, they will be impressed. They will see a group of wonderful young men and women upholding the values of Britain, standing up for our interests and putting their lives on the line for us. When those Treasury Ministers see what is really going on, they will have a changed perspective when they return to the United Kingdom to negotiate with the MOD; and the MOD, our armed forces and our country will benefit accordingly.

John Baron: Yes it has. Spending on the military has fallen from 2.9 to 2.5 per cent. of our gross domestic product —[Interruption.] I am not wrong. It has fallen by that amount during the past 10 years. That may not sound like a big percentage but it represents £5 billion in today's money, which could put right a lot of what is wrong in the armed forces, certainly when it comes to service accommodation.
	That leads me to the point about overstretch. I agree that many terms are used with regard to the concept of overstretch. The bottom line is that the armed forces receive about £5 billion less because of that decrease in spending as a percentage of GDP. That 0.4 per cent. drop in expenditure does not sound a lot, but that money would put right the Army's 4,000 personnel deficit: it does not sound a lot, but it has a big knock-on effect on deployment. When the Chief of the General Staff visited Parliament and made a presentation—if I remember correctly, the Minister was there—he said that the time spent on deployment was normally around 20 per cent. of total time. At the moment, the Army is running at 37 per cent. and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) pointed out, that over-deployment has been going on since 2002. The Chief of the General Staff made the point that that cannot continue indefinitely and we are reaching breaking point.
	Most recent figures show that most Army units now fail to meet the 24-month average interval between tours. That leaves units and individuals separated from their families for far too long, and training and recuperation inevitably suffer.
	We must also ensure that we supply our troops with the right equipment. Troops returning from theatre tell of life-threatening shortages of kit, including body armour, satellite phones, oil to prevent guns jamming and electronic equipment to detect roadside bombs— [interruption.] I shall move on.
	I should warn the Minister that the public take those failings very seriously. It is no credit to the Government that the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support announced that he was walking away from politics to drive racing cars on the very day that a coroner ruled that a shortage of kit cost Fusilier Gordon Gentle his life. That is not lost on the public.
	The Defence Committee has highlighted the shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan, and that is especially important in that region, because it has a knock-on effect in the strain put on crews, especially when they have to land in the conditions there at night. It also has an impact on our successes on the ground. One of my concerns about Afghanistan is that many of the victories that we are accomplishing now could become pyrrhic victories if we do not dominate the ground that we have won. It is no good taking towns if we cannot dominate the ground around them, and helicopters have a vital role to play in achieving that. If we eventually cede that ground to the Taliban, the victories will indeed be pyrrhic.
	I welcome the rule changes to compensation claims, and I give the Government credit where it is due for those. It is right that service personnel can now claim for each injury. However, I would ask the Minister to address directly why the limit on compensation remains at £285,000, and will the Government and MOD do any work on that? To put the figure into context, Peterborough borough council spends some £285,000 on awarding compensation to those who trip over paving stones, and that is a useful comparison.
	Given the litany of failings by the Government, I have to say, as an ex-serviceman, that it is bemusing to hear Ministers say that when they are visiting troops, they do not hear them grumble too much, so perhaps Opposition Members and the media exaggerate some of the concerns. That is the wrong approach. Partly because service personnel are taught not to complain, and partly because of their deference to the chain of command, they do not grumble. It is ludicrous to suggest that because nothing is said, all is well. It shows how out of touch Ministers risk appearing.

Eric Joyce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I realise that we are near the end of his allotted time. Does he see how what he had just said contrasts with what the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff in the other place say? When they visit troops, all they hear is grumbling.

John Baron: I am not sure that the question made sense, but the bottom line is that Ministers are saying too often that they do not hear complaints when they visit troops. That is nonsense. As I have seen comrades pay the ultimate price on operation, it galls me when Ministers seem incapable of understanding the nature and substance of the armed forces commitment.
	Service personnel will give 100 per cent. to their country. They will suffer conditions on the front line that some in this place would not believe in this world of human rights. They will not grumble; the British Tommy gets on with the job. That is why it is so important that Ministers listen to those at the top when they break silence. Lord Guthrie has talked about the services feeling as thought they are being taken for granted. Admiral Lord Boyce accused the Prime Minister of treating the armed forces with contempt and disinterest. The Chief of the General Staff clearly said that the military covenant is out of kilter and that the troops are feeling devalued, angry and fatigued.
	Let us be clear that it is regrettable when senior officers and retired senior officers think it necessary to speak out. It is not the way in which we do things in this country. However, it shows the scale of the problem. Those people are not seeking publicity. They are speaking out for those who do not have a union or a federation to speak out on their behalf and who will not and cannot strike. They are making the Government aware of problems as best they can, because Ministers will not listen in private. In many soldiers' minds, the proof that the Government are not 100 per cent. committed to their interests is the part-time Secretary of State. Those on the Government Front Bench do not understand the strength of feeling. The wrong message is sent out.
	Troops give 100 per cent. and expect 100 per cent. in return. The Defence Secretary has openly asked what more he should be doing, and enough has been said this afternoon to illustrate what needs be done and the issues that need to be dealt with: substandard housing, the fact that the Army is overstretched and the shortage of kit.
	In conclusion, the fact that the Royal British Legion has felt obliged to mount a campaign about the military covenant along the lines of "We count on him; can they count on us?" illustrates the state of affairs. The Army is being asked to do too much with too few men and resources. The Secretary of State has admitted that the Government can do better. Let us hope that now is the time for action.

Tobias Ellwood: I will try to adhere to your recommendation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who made some important comments, particularly on the subject of inquests. It is bizarre that under our system, wherever the Hercules or C-17 lands, that is where the inquest has to take place. I encourage the powers that be to ensure that a Bill is expedited, so that we can remove that quirk in the system.
	In this debate on armed forces personnel we have heard a lot about cuts to the size of our forces and reductions in budgets that have led to overstretch, and to pressures on members of our armed forces across the board. As we have heard, that has certainly led to challenges for recruitment and, more worryingly, for retention. Since 1997, the Army has been reduced by 9,000 people, the Navy by 10,000 and the RAF by 16,000. Those are colossal numbers, considering the expectations and burdens that we put on our armed forces personnel across the world.
	I shall focus my attention on two issues. The first is the aftercare provided to service personnel once they have left the armed forces. We have rightly covered a range of issues, including welfare, equipment, and frequency of tours. Those are all important, but we have to remember what happens to a soldier when they have picked up their armed forces long service and good conduct medal after 16 years, or when they have taken an honourable decommission, and decided to go on civvy street. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and many of the veterans' associations that look after our heroes once they have decided to take a role in civilian life. They play an important role, providing reunion opportunities, support, and the mechanisms and facilities that are needed to ensure that armed forces personnel make a healthy, informed transition from a military to a civilian environment.
	After the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict, it was horrifying to learn that more than 300 veterans of that conflict had committed suicide since returning—a statistic that will shock the House. That is more than were killed in action on the islands. It is an unacceptable figure. One would think that things would have changed, but a recent report in the  British Medical Journal highlights some of the psychological disorders and concerns that affect Army personnel, particularly those who are in combat situations for a total of more than 13 months. They include post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, multiple physical symptoms, and symptoms connected with alcohol problems.
	I appreciate that much has changed since the 1980s and the Falklands conflict, but I was horrified to learn, in response to a written question that I asked the Defence Secretary, that 17 serving soldiers who served either in Iraq or Afghanistan have committed suicide. We are talking about Army personnel who were still in uniform. They had not even left the protection of the military family, but decided to take their own lives. I would hazard a guess that the total number of people who have committed suicide having served in those two areas of conflict is double that figure, because there are those who were not receiving the attention and security that the military environment can offer. I do not know the numbers, and I seriously urge the Minister to investigate and try to find out the number of suicides among those who served in those conflicts but who left and were civilians.
	I am afraid that the US does not fare any better: 99 American soldiers have killed themselves since 2006. That is the highest suicide rate in 26 years. We have not touched on that issue before, and I hope that the Minister will heed our concerns. We have a duty of care, which I do not believe we are fulfilling. We have a responsibility that goes far beyond the battlefields and parade squares, and we have an obligation to look after our heroes long after they have hung up their uniforms.
	My second theme is the changing role of our military. We had a little engagement on that subject with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It was interesting to hear the Foreign Secretary's recent comments on the "Today" programme, in which he promised to prioritise the Government's work on conflict prevention, and to work better with the armed forces. That is the stance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Secretary also pledged greater integration and better co-operation with the Department for International Development.
	I agreed with those sentiments, but I shall not hold my breath. I agreed with the comments of Sir Hilary Synnott, who is a respected commentator on Iraq. He has worked in the civil service and written and travelled extensively throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. He said:
	"We shall not be holding our breaths. We have heard the like before. The imbalance of effort, of outlay of blood and treasure, between the military and the civilian arms of government has brought shame upon the Government."
	Those are harsh words from somebody so respected and so knowledgeable about such matters.
	I shall touch on our concerns. We had a statement from the Liberal Democrats pointing out that our military are still in Iraq, and I am sure they would say the same about Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about what happens underneath that umbrella of security. The only reason why our military personnel are in those two operational environments is that we have not been able to achieve the level of infrastructure and improvements to those countries that would allow the military to move from a war fighting capacity to a peacekeeping one. That is because we do not have a proper co-ordinated plan in either of those environments.
	I visit Afghanistan frequently and I was in Iraq not long ago. In both cases, we went in not understanding what was expected of DFID and of the FCO. The only expectation was that our military were to go in and somehow kill the bad guys and make the place safe. Let us suppose that that happened, and that in Helmand province we reached an agreement with the Taliban that was put in place. We would then have to start infrastructure-building from scratch. It is not the military who do that. It should be done by a combination of DFID and the FCO with the United Nations and the European Union. That is not happening in any part of Afghanistan on the scale that it should.
	That is the concern, and it applies to Iraq as well. There are conflicts in Basra between the Mahdi army and the other groups, and the only thing that links them is their hatred of the British, who are seen as hostile because we are no longer liberators but occupiers. That is a horrible thing to say about our British forces and the good work that they do— [Interruption.] I hear barracking from the Government Benches. Does the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) wish to intervene?

Bob Russell: I pay tribute to members of Her Majesty's armed forces. In particular, I mention 16 Air Assault Brigade from the Colchester garrison, who in the course of this year will be deployed to Afghanistan. We wish them Godspeed and a safe return.
	I shall confine my remarks to two narrow areas of personnel. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) who, through parliamentary questions has elicited the fact that half of the country's single service personnel accommodation is substandard. I will balance that by saying that the new Merville barracks in Colchester provide the best possible accommodation, and that is the yardstick for which we should strive for all single military accommodation in a much shorter time frame than is currently envisaged, with only 38,000 rooms, apparently, achieving a top rating. I was not so happy to learn that almost 9,000 families remain stuck in grade 4 homes and another 387 are in accommodation so poor that it does not even reach the lowest official grading.
	I am bound to observe that the sale by the last Conservative Government of the Ministry of Defence housing stock to Annington Homes must have been the biggest privatisation rip-off of the lot. When he sums up, perhaps the Minister will confirm that since that privatisation the Ministry of Defence has paid Annington Homes more in rent than the Government received when the 55,000 dwellings were sold in 1996. What makes the situation even worse is that if those sales of surplus accommodation—there have been many sales of such accommodation and Army land—had been invested into Ministry of Defence housing, all our Army, Navy and Royal Air Force families would now be living in family accommodation that was second to none.
	I shall cite examples from my constituency of Colchester, and I cannot believe that they are isolated. Annington Homes managed to convince everybody that certain houses were so deplorable that they would have to be pulled down. The site has subsequently been sold off; land prices in Colchester are exceptionally high. Annington Homes made a financial killing, and only a tiny percentage came back to the Government—not even to the Ministry of Defence.
	I shall give one other example, because the maths involved are easy for me. Some 40 former Ministry of Defence surplus dwellings on a single road had been purchased at an average price of £15,000 at privatisation. They were subsequently sold for £115,000, giving a gross profit of £4 million on just 40 dwellings. That story can be repeated right across the country, wherever Annington Homes has been selling off properties.
	I turn to education matters, in particular the "Educating Service Children" report, which has 33 recommendations. It would be interesting to know how many of them have been adopted by the Ministry of Defence. I shall concentrate on recommendation 5:
	"The MoD and local education authorities should begin planning for the impact that the creation of Super Garrisons will have on pupil numbers in schools located near Service bases."
	Clearly, that recommendation has not been followed through in Colchester with the Ministry of Defence and Essex education authority; there is a proposal to close the secondary school to which the children go from age 11. That was the subject of my Adjournment debate of 22 October last year. Alderman Blaxill school is the smallest secondary school in Colchester; between a fifth and a quarter of its pupils come from Army families and its closure has clearly not been discussed with the MOD. I ask the Minister to look at that issue. Will he and his officials also look at my Adjournment debate of 25 October 1999 on the education of Army children? Clearly, issues raised then have not been addressed.
	Finally in my short contribution I want to mention three primary schools whose pupils come predominantly from services families, in the context of the closure by Essex county council of the hot school meals service in the county. Some 90 per cent. of children at Montgomery infant school are Army children, as are 70 per cent. of Montgomery junior school pupils. No hot meals are provided for them. I suggest that if the Army can provide meals for our service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, there should be a system for providing hot school meals to children back in Colchester. About 60 per cent. of children at another school, St. Michael's primary, are also from Army families. I urge the Ministry of Defence to consider seriously the whole question of education provision. It should look at what the Defence Committee said and act accordingly.

Quentin Davies: I have obviously drawn the short straw, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am grateful at least to have been able to draw one, however short.
	One of the gratifying things about this debate is that it will be apparent to anybody who listens in from outside that there is absolute unanimity between everybody who has spoken, and in all parties in this House, about the importance of the military covenant and the commitment of any Government who send our troops abroad to ensure that they are properly supported, trained and equipped, and that they have fair and decent terms and conditions.
	On that latter point, in my 20 years in the House there have never been a Government who have made so much progress in such a short time. Clearly, one never meets all one's desiderata in life; equally clearly, there will always be public expenditure constraints. However, in the short space of time—18 months—that the Secretary of State has been in his present role, we have had the introduction of the operational allowance, which is tax-free and amounts to about £2,400 at the end of a six-month deployment: that is very significant. We have had an improved deployed welfare package, including 20 additional days' leave at the end of a six-month deployment. We have had new rules and better ceilings for the compensation scheme. We have had the tax-free council tax rebate. We have had the new military wing at Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.
	We have had, very importantly and for the first time ever, a cross-Government strategy for military personnel involving the MOD and the other Departments that are so crucial: the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which is important for reasons that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned; the Department of Health, which is important in terms of access to dental care and general practitioners as well as the military wings such as those at Selly Oak hospital; the Ministry of Justice which is important because of the sad matter of coroners' inquests; and the Department for Communities and Local Government, which deals with access to council housing—I think that everyone in the House greatly welcomes the announcement of the legislation on that subject.
	Last but not least, there is the pay deal, which has been very good, with the lowest ranks achieving 9.2 per cent. I personally express the great hope that this year the Government are again generous, because the military deserve to be treated as a very special case in relation to everybody else. That includes even the police, who may once or twice in their careers face a life-threatening situation, whereas the military live for six months at a time, on one deployment, with the prospect of being killed at any time. That is a very different psychological situation and a very different career pattern to adopt.
	Apart from the covenant that the Government of the day have with the military— although, as I said, this Government have a wonderful record, taking into account all the obvious realities and constraints—there is a wider public covenant with the military. After all, the people who are in Helmand province and in Basra are risking their lives for our sakes. There is no doubt that if the terrorists who attacked here last year in London and Glasgow had had the benefit of a six-month training course in Afghanistan in bomb-making and detonation techniques, the results of their endeavours would have been very different. There is no question but that the young men and women who are defending us in Afghanistan are risking their lives for our sakes. The covenant is not confined to the Government; it is an obligation that we all have.
	There is overwhelming support in the country for the armed services in principle, with perhaps a few unfortunate exceptions, to which I shall refer in a moment. People often do not have the opportunities that they would like to express their sense of solidarity with the armed forces. The point has already been well made that there is probably less personal contact with and understanding of the military than there was in previous generations. In the world war two generation, or indeed the national service generation, almost every family had someone in uniform. The situation is very different now, and there are greater opportunities for misunderstandings or simple ignorance. The degree of public support for and understanding of the military is very important, because that is the context in which our armed services operate and recruit. It is also vital for morale, because nothing could be more demoralising than feeling that one is risking one's life for people who are profoundly indifferent to, ignorant about or ill-informed as to what one is doing. Any sense of misunderstanding or misperception is very unfortunate and one would want to remove it.
	Recently, there have been one or two very unfortunate incidents; they were exceptional and egregious, but extremely unattractive incidents. In one case, according to the popular press—I have not yet investigated this directly—a soldier in uniform was refused service on the forecourt of a BP service station. That was widely reported. In another incident, which I have investigated, having written to Mr. al-Fayed about it, a soldier was refused admission to Harrods because he was in uniform. That sort of thing is utterly disgraceful. Not very long ago, a woman was apparently insultingly rude about some wounded or crippled soldiers who were using a swimming bath. These unfortunate incidents are, of course, blown up by the popular press, but the fact that they exist must be a matter of deep concern to us.
	That is the context in which the Prime Minister has asked me to undertake a study of national recognition and public understanding of the armed services in order to see what possible measures might be taken and what initiatives might be envisaged to enhance public understanding and respect for the armed services. In that, I am well supported by Air Commodore Martin Sharp, and Bill Clark OBE, who is a senior MOD civil servant. I hope that we can make a modest contribution to improvement in that field, as the Government have so laudably done by fulfilling their obligations under their military compact with the armed services.

Andrew Murrison: I begin by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I would also like to add my expression of admiration for our men and women in uniform, their long-suffering families, veterans and the organisations that look after them and their interests, often unsung. Veterans Aid, an organisation that I visited on Tuesday with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), is a drop-in centre near Victoria station, and many such organisations are doing similar work unsung, day in and day out, and we must pay tribute to them.
	We have had an interesting and varied debate. A total of 11 Back-Bench speakers have all added, in their individual way, to the debate on this important subject. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) said that he was concerned about cadets and how people's exposure to the military may have been reduced in modern times. He might have mentioned the abolition of the Government's school visits teams, which were doing a great deal to increase the profile of the military in our schools but have been replaced by a compact disc.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) talked about mental health problems. I sincerely recommend that he visit the medical assessment programme at St. Thomas' hospital, which I did on Tuesday. I say in all sincerity that if he did so, he might gain a slightly more profound understanding of some of the extremely complex—and in many ways highly technical—issues that relate to mental health, and of the occupational implications of service in the armed forces.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) was greatly exercised about training, quite obviously, because MOD St. Athan lies within his constituency. He did not mention the voids and cancellation rates that apply to much of our training effort at the moment as a result of operational pressures and undermanning.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) rightly took exception to the Rowntree report. However, when we recruit people to our armed forces, it is appropriate that we highlight the positive aspects that represent a truthful reflection of what they are likely to be exposed to. Certainly, things such as sport and adventurous training, which have deteriorated in recent years because of operational commitments and pressures, are not quite as obvious an attraction to our young men and women as they were 20 or 25 years ago when I joined up. It is right that we paint an accurate picture of what the future holds in store for our recruits. My right hon. Friend also echoed Lord Guthrie's remarks about the now Prime Minister's apparent disinterest in military matters when he was Chancellor.
	The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the importance of logistics. Again, that is understandable, given his constituency interest. He was right to mention the importance of in-theatre tracking.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) spoke authoritatively about his battalion and its return to Hounslow barracks. The Secretary of State said that he was interested in Hounslow barracks—I am, too, and I would like to visit. Perhaps we can all visit together and the Secretary of State might like to give us a lift.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) talked about health care, which is close to my heart, and the importance of taking a balanced view of the military covenant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) rightly paid tribute to the Royal British Legion, which has done so much to highlight the military covenant in the past few months. He spoke knowledgeably about suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is related to overstretch and harmony guidelines.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) railed against retired top brass. I have one or two things to say about the top brass, but in a slightly different vein.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) would refer to early-day motion 2030, which he tabled in the previous Session. It related to a windfall tax on our defence supplies and the potential impact on our defence community.
	It is important to place what we now call the military covenant in a proper historical context. Rudyard Kipling talked about the trials of Tommy Atkins in 1892. He was observed to be the saviour of his country in wartime but at other times was denigrated by an ungrateful and unappreciative public, who misunderstood him.
	A hundred years on, it seems as though Tommy is still being slighted in some quarters. We have heard about people being told to remove the Queen's uniform in British hospitals, airports, even sports facilities and being refused service in retail outlets. The difference between then and now is that our society is less deferential, less civil and arguably less polite. People's ire today is freely and frankly expressed. Disapproval of the military has been heightened by unpopular conflicts and the Government's failure to win the British people's support for them.
	The military covenant is a deal that is struck in recognition of our troops' willingness to sacrifice everything. It is a tripartite deal, which involves, in equal measure, our armed forces, the people and the Government. According to ex-service chiefs and charities, two of those parties have reneged on the deal. Understanding the public's attitude to the military does not necessarily help us fix it. Tommy Atkins may simply have to put up with the cold shoulder of public opinion, but there is no excuse for the third party to the covenant, the Government, to mirror society in disregarding the Army and its veterans.
	It is odd that the Government should set up an inquiry into the relationship between the people and the military while apparently ignoring their part in the covenant. Given the unpopularity of their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Government, more than any other, owe it to the armed forces to do the right thing.
	Who can doubt that overstretch and incompletely funded discretionary commitments lie at the heart of the current sad state of affairs? They run as a thread through everything that relates to the armed forces today. Our troops put up with single accommodation for trained soldiers that first-year college students would laugh at. They put up with a gulf between social housing and homes apparently fit for heroes and with a Government who refuse to adopt even the minimal decent homes standards that apply elsewhere. As the Public Accounts Committee said in November, housing is viewed as low-hanging fruit when savings are required.
	Our soldiers put up with inequitable Government funding for Army schoolchildren in counties such as mine. In a letter to me this week, the Minister for Schools and Learners suggested that he would consider a revision to the funding formula to reflect forces children only in the context of people such as migrant workers, whose children also changed schools frequently. No special consideration—so much for the military covenant.
	We have seen harmony guidelines routinely breached, with 10 per cent. of the Army's trained strength currently affected and dire consequences for mental, physical and domestic well-being, as we know from a recent study published in the  British Medical Journal. We have seen delayed coroner's inquests, as well as a gross shortage in medical staffing, including a monstrous 55 per cent. shortfall in trained doctors in the Defence Medical Services, and a Government unwilling to say whether increased spending on the NHS has been reflected in full by a commensurate uplift for defence medicine. We see compensation for wounds that looks tawdry when set against settlements for relatively minor industrial injuries.
	All those are examples of how a mismatch between commitments and resources and the traditional grudging attitude of Labour Ministers to the military has fractured the covenant between the armed forces and the Government. The result is that people who can leave do leave, hence the Public Accounts Committee's revelation in July that there are now more than 80 operational pinch points, from medics to aircrew. That is why 1,344 Army officers quit in the final six months of last year, which was twice the comparable six-month figure for 2005-06 and three times the figure for 2004-05.
	Unfortunately time is extremely limited, but I have two anecdotes that exemplify fairly well the problems that we face through the Government's and the public's attitude to our military. The new year has already brought us two bad weather stories that, in their own different ways, encapsulate the shoddy way in which the public and the Government deal with our troops. The first anecdote is about 200 homecoming soldiers who were apparently ordered to strip off their desert combats on freezing tarmac before entering the terminal building at Birmingham airport, to which they had been diverted because of fog at Brize Norton. An airport spokesman said that
	"certain airlines may refuse to accept personnel in military uniform."
	Will the Minister clarify who told those soldiers to remove the Queen's uniform and assure the House that whoever it was has been rigorously re-briefed? Will he also undertake to blacklist any airline that presumes to stipulate that our servicemen may not fly in rig?
	Fog at Brize was apparently also responsible for the diversion of 130 soldiers returning from Basra to Prestwick in a horrific 36-hour transit fiasco that got them back to their home base in Wiltshire at 5 am on Christmas day. Why were soldiers left stranded at Prestwick, armed only with a railway warrant? Why was the charter flight sent over dozens of fog-free English airports to dump those troops at Prestwick? On Christmas eve, why did not somebody from Whitehall's newly refurbished, incredibly plush MOD retirement home for the top brass get their finger out to ensure that those boys and girls got home on time?
	Is it not the truth that the Government's commitment to honouring the covenant does not extend to replacing clapped-out airframes, showing bargain-basement contract operators the door and coughing up the paltry runway dues or whatever else it takes to get our people home for Christmas? I look forward to hearing the fogbound Minister's account of what on earth was happening on both those occasions and to listening to what he thinks they say about our commitment to the military covenant.

Bob Ainsworth: At the end of that we have to remind ourselves that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) started his contribution by telling us how our society had become less polite.
	I am replying to a shortened debate with a shortened contribution. I am sorry that I will not be able to respond to all the points that have been raised, but I thought that it was more important that the hon. Gentleman and I should both agree to shorten our contributions to enable those who have made the effort to turn up to speak. There is a degree of expertise in the House that is recognised on both sides. I will do my best in the time remaining to respond to the many points that have been made and will write to hon. Members afterwards if I do not manage to cover the issues that they raised.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked me about super- garrisons and our continued commitment to them. We are indeed still committed to the creation of super-garrisons. He is right that they will offer opportunities for improved individual development and have the potential to give stability to Army families. I know that he is anxious that we should do something in Stafford—he is relentless in his representations on behalf of his constituency—but such issues are complicated and are tied up with the issue of bringing home troops from Germany, as he said. We are looking to travel in the direction that he would want us to travel in, but not necessarily at the speed at which he would want things done.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) welcomed the Command Paper and raised a couple of important points that are worth addressing. First, he asked about the appropriate role for charities and for the Government? We have a long-established principle in this country that charities should play a role. Is there any hon. Member in any political party who wants to see that diminished, who does not want it continued, who does not acknowledge the fantastic work that many military charities do and have done over many years? It is not for the Government to do everything, but of course the Government have responsibilities and must discharge them. There is no way that we want to disincentivise the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the Royal British Legion and all the other organisations that support our military.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend, along with other Members, raised the issue of inquests. We are making progress on inquests, as we have given additional resources to both the Oxford and the Wiltshire coroners to enable them to do more. As part of the Command Paper, we are looking into whether we should do more to support service families in their bereavement. I accept my hon. Friend's point that changing this may not necessarily be my top priority, but I ask other hon. Members who call for a change to think very seriously about what they want us to do with the coroner service.
	The Ministry of Defence is represented by lawyers at only a minority—a small minority—of coroners' inquests. If we want to give families legal aid in order for them to be represented at such inquests, we are effectively saying that lawyers should have a role in them, which fundamentally changes the nature of coroners' courts. I do not know whether Members really want that fundamental change and I am not at all sure that that is the best use of the money we have to support families, particularly bereaved families. There is a lot more that we could and should do, so we are looking into that as part of the Command Paper.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) felt that other Government Departments were falling down and not necessarily doing the business, leaving the military to hold the baby, as it were, in areas of operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when the Prime Minister announced the "next steps" for Afghanistan, recognising the need for a comprehensive approach. We acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that the military can do only so much and that other organisations—not just our own Government organisations—have a role to play. The politics of Iraq underpins some of these issues and it is the politicians of Iraq who can and should pick them up and take them forward. They have the ability, the wherewithal and the finances to do so. Our military cannot be blamed if everything has not been put in place at the appropriate time, when they have done a good job in providing the stability that has allowed progress to be made in the first place.

Bob Ainsworth: We will update the House on that, but it is not appropriate to spend much time on it in an already shortened debate. There is no huge disagreement between what the hon. Gentleman is saying in principle and what we agree needs to be decided on those issues.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) talked about homes, particularly the contract for Annington Homes. He is right: we still live with the consequences of that contract. As he said, we have paid more in rent than we have received. However, the contract was entered into and we must honour it. The company had the good fortune to buy property at the bottom of the market at a time when it was impossible to lose.
	The hon. Gentleman said something that has been said repeatedly in the House. As the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, we recognise what still needs to be done to improve accommodation, but let us stop this nonsense about half our accommodation being sub-standard by any measure. The standards that we use to measure our service accommodation are higher than the standards applied in civilian life—and rightly so—and we have aspirations to ensure that our people live in the best grade of accommodation. The fact that we are not prepared to lower our aspirations should not allow people to exaggerate the situation. There are people who must put up with bad accommodation, and I accept that it is 100 per cent. bad for them, but huge progress is being made. Money is being spent and has been spent over a long period, and we have plans for continued spending which the Secretary of State set out.

Bob Ainsworth: I am afraid that I am very short of time.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said that we needed an extra 7,000 people in the Army and we had no budget for recruiting. I remind him that a month or so ago his party presented the House with a paper describing its commitment to the armed forces, and a disclaimer: "By the way, we have not put any budget into this". That was a rather bigger commitment than the commitment to recruitment. We have recruitment capability the length and breadth of the country, and it is budgeted for. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that. I think he was saying that we needed additional resources for recruitment, but if his party cannot include any commitment in a strategic paper, claiming that we are letting our armed forces down and then saying that there is no money attached to its proposals, he hardly has a case for saying that we have no money for recruitment.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who opened the debate for the Conservative party, attacked the Prime Minister again for the figures that he claimed in relation to Iraq. The Prime Minister came to the House and said that by Christmas there would be 4,500 of our troops in Iraq. They were; they are. It is no good the hon. Gentleman going around talking about regional variations and throwing out figures. Of course figures will go up and down. As we RIP—relief in place—troops in and out of theatre and make other commitments in the near-theatre area, there will be fluctuations: the hon. Gentleman knows that. What was said in the House was that our troop numbers would be down at 4,500 by Christmas, and they are.  [Interruption.] They are down to the figure that was said. The hon. Gentleman also claimed that we were short of helicopters; he should know that we have increased helicopter flying hours—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed, without Question put.

Angela Smith: I thank the Speaker for selecting this topic for this evening's debate, as it gives me a chance to air an appalling case involving the Child Support Agency, which raises important points of principle that require debate and resolution.
	I need to start by outlining the basic details of the case, which started on 5 February 2007 when a constituent of mine, Ryan Kennedy, was contacted by the CSA to inform him that he had been named as the father of a six-year-old child. He did not think that he was the father of the child, but he wanted things to be sorted out as quickly as possible so he co-operated with the agency in having the DNA testing carried out immediately—within the two-week required period. He conformed entirely with CSA regulations; indeed, he did so partly because he was told that if he refused to co-operate he would automatically be declared the father of the child.
	Mr. Kennedy spent the £200 on the test, and then heard nothing. Bearing in mind that that was in February 2007, he repeatedly contacted the CSA, was passed on from individual to individual and had telephone calls ignored, and in the end, in desperation, he came to my office to see if I could move things forward for him. Indeed, it took me some time to get some clarification from the CSA, but it emerged that the mother of the child had refused to have the DNA test done either on herself or on the child involved.
	I would like to read a statement made by my constituent, which exhibits the burning sense of injustice felt by him at this point in the proceedings:
	"I was given a two-week deadline otherwise action would be taken. How can this happen where there is one rule for one and one rule for another?"
	He then went on to tell the man from the CSA how desperate he felt and that
	"I would be seeking legal action upon which he said ok and put the phone down on me."
	My constituent felt that he was being required by law to have the test done, otherwise he would be declared the father of the child and be liable to payments, whereas the woman naming him as the father of the child was not forced to have the test done on herself.
	My constituent described to me the impact the situation had on his health—he was so affected in that he could not sleep properly. He was clearly distressed—so much so that he broke down in my surgery. On telling me that he was getting married this year—2008—he immediately impressed upon me the critical nature of the situation he was in. He was getting married and at the stage when the arrangements were being made—he was buying a house—suddenly there was a child on the horizon whom nobody knew about.
	My constituent asked me to write to the CSA and, finally, after a number of telephone calls that I myself had to make to the agency on the hotline—I could not even get my staff do that as they were not getting anywhere—on 18 September I received a written response. Frankly, it was appalling, as it spelled out a situation that is clearly discriminatory. It stated:
	"If a parent with care does not comply with the Agency regarding a child support application we can take the following action".
	As the first step, if the
	"parent with care is in receipt of a prescribed benefit—the parent with care would incur a financial penalty which would affect the amount of benefit either they or their household receive. This penalty would remain in place until such times as they complied with the Agency or ceased to be in receipt of"
	a benefit. However, if the parent with care is a private client
	"the Agency would close the parent with care's application for child support".
	In other words, if the mother was on benefit, the case on my constituent would be kept open, but if she was not on benefit, it would be closed. That is clearly discriminatory and unsatisfactory.
	What made the situation worse was a paragraph further down in the letter. It said that Mr. Kennedy had
	"been advised that the application will remain open and effective from the first contact date with him if it is established at a later date that he is indeed the father of Warren."
	Given that the CSA can claim payments from parents without care until the age of maturity, which in most cases is 19, my constituent faced a situation where he could be told at any time over a 13-year period that he was the father of this child and he would have the claim for maintenance payments backdated. It does not take a mathematician to work out that someone on an average salary, which is approximately £20,000 a year in Sheffield, would face a substantial backdated claim over a period of years.
	Something had to be done. I wrote to the Minister on 20 September asking for amendments to the law, especially given that we had the opportunity to do that easily because legislation was going through Parliament. That approach led to an ongoing correspondence with Ministers in the other place and the CSA, and in turn to two outcomes. First, on 21 December, my constituent's case was resolved, but only because the parent with care ceased to claim benefits. The case was thus closed and we were informed of that fact.
	Secondly, on 7 December, we received a letter from the Department's Minister in the other place, which made it clear that there could be a way forward in terms of the general principle applying in this case. It stated:
	"The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill...includes a clause which repeals section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991. If section 6 is repealed it will mean that parents with care claiming benefits will no longer be required to apply for child maintenance through the state system. Therefore, where the mother refuses to comply with Agency regulations the case will be closed."
	To that extent, the progress made has been satisfactory, but the case raises a number of points. First, I want to draw attention to the inadequacy of the responses that we have received, in the context of the lack of awareness demonstrated to an individual caught up in a situation clearly not of his own making. Secondly, I want to discuss the discrimination and the human rights implications of the case. I then wish to ask three questions of the Minister.
	After the months of evasion by the CSA, which I have described, and frustration on the part of my constituent, we received the letter dated 18 September that I mentioned. It set out the position relating to Mr. Kennedy—the situation was clearly unsatisfactory at that point—and finished with a statement that I found astounding. It stated:
	"Although Mr. Kennedy was unhappy with this response the Agency can confirm that it has followed all the appropriate guidelines and legislation in addressing the issue of establishing if he is the father".
	To say that he was unhappy with the response was an understatement.
	No sense of understanding of my constituent's position was given in that final paragraph. The CSA did not seem to be bothered about trying to understand the perspective of my constituent and how he might feel about the situation; it only seemed to be bothered about the fact that it was in the clear legally and that it had not done anything wrong. That seemed to be all the CSA was going to say about the matter. Its attitude was, "He can live with it. We are okay. We have not done anything wrong. We are just applying the law as it stands."
	In further discussions that I had with CSA staff, rather unusually, a different attitude was demonstrated. When I discussed the matter on the phone and when the position became clear, a degree of sympathy was shown, and that was more than welcome. That was the first time that I experienced that kind of personalised response to a case in my conversations with the CSA.
	The initial ministerial response that I received from the other place was equally disappointing. I got my first response on 23 October, which advised me that if my constituent was unhappy with the situation, he should go to court to try to obtain a declaration of non-parentage under the Family Law Act 1986. The response made it clear that the Department for Work and Pensions did not think that the law needed to be changed, but what kind of response was that? After all, my constituent was not in a situation of his own making. He could not afford to go to court to resolve the issue and he had complied at every stage with the CSA regulations. Why should citizens of this country have to take drastic legal action to resolve a situation when they have done nothing wrong, have not broken any law and do not have to defend any action against them? It is down to Parliament to resolve such difficulties—such legal complications—to ensure that the situation does not arise again with the CSA or any body that replaces it.
	The responses we received were clear evidence of discriminatory practices. First, a differentiation is made between parents who claim benefits and those who do not. That is clearly discriminatory, although it looks as though it will be resolved through changes to the legislation. My constituent suffered the knock-on effect of that discrimination. Because the woman who had named him as the father of the child was claiming benefit, he was liable to be held on the CSA's books for 13 years. If she had not been on benefit and had made a private claim, that would not have happened. That is clearly discriminatory. The problem was compounded in this case because the individual had done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to deserve such discrimination.
	The case also has human rights implications. If someone is kept on the books of an organisation for up to 13 years—up to 19 years in some cases—they will face huge costs over the period, and not just financial. There are the psychological costs, as well as the possible impact on any marriage and the decision on whether to start a family. The threat posed by the CSA to keep the claim on the books for that period had a huge impact on the life of Mr. Kennedy. I repeat the point that I made in a letter to the Department:
	"If this Government is about anything, it is about equality and individual rights. I think in these circumstances the Government is falling short of these exemplary aspirations."
	I look to the Minister today for answers, in the hope that we can resolve the discrimination and human rights issues raised by this case.
	I would also like clarification of some points of principle from the Minister. If section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 is to be repealed by Parliament, can the Minister confirm that that will release individuals such as my constituent from the threat that is held over them? In other words, can the Minister confirm that it will not happen again?
	When the legislation has gone through Parliament, will it be applied retrospectively? Can the Minister confirm that individuals currently caught in similar situations with the CSA will be able to resolve their cases under the provisions of the new legislation?
	Finally, there is the important issue of the DNA. I do not believe that individuals who are arrested and never charged should have their DNA samples held by the state. In this case, Mr. Kennedy was not arrested, he did nothing wrong and he was not charged with any crime. In the end, he was not even charged money for giving the sample. Surely it is only right that the DNA sample should be destroyed. Will the Minister confirm that DNA samples that are proved to be redundant to CSA claims and processes are destroyed?
	This is the by far the worst case involving the CSA with which I have ever had to deal, and that is saying something. I think that most hon. Members will agree that the CSA is a difficult agency to deal with. My constituent wanted the matter raised even though his case has now been resolved because he does not want the same to happen to anyone else. He has compromised his confidentiality to allow me to put the case on the record. That shows how strongly he feels about the year of hell that he has been through. How many others are in the same situation? It would be interesting to know. I look forward to the Minister's response.